pack_size_floor

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key behavioral trait that the gate is a z-score over the pack's own scores, and that a small pack has a ceiling below it and stays dark. This adds meaningful context about the internal logic beyond what the tool name alone conveys.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core concept. The phrase 'stays dark' is slightly informal but does not add unnecessary length. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that there is an output schema and only one optional parameter, the description provides sufficient context about the tool's purpose and underlying logic. It explains why pack size matters and how the gate works. It could be more explicit about z_threshold, but overall it covers the essential aspects for a tool of this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero description coverage for the parameter z_threshold, and the tool description does not explicitly explain what this parameter represents or how it affects the floor. It only refers to 'a given gate,' which is a vague hint. The default value of 4.75 is also not mentioned, leaving the parameter semantics largely unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool determines the minimum pack size needed before any question can fire, given a gate. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like validate_pack or read_pack by focusing on this specific size floor calculation, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'calculates.'

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the context of the live gate being a z-score and mentions that small packs stay dark, which implies when this tool would be useful. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.