bpcs_capacity

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the estimation process but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only and does not modify the file. It also omits any prerequisites beyond the input format mentioned in the schema.

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 concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose, method, and output units. No wasted words.

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?

The description explains output units (bits, bytes, percentage) despite lacking an output schema. It also mentions the algorithm's scope (all bit planes and channels) and input format, making it complete for a simple estimation tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about how the threshold is used in the algorithm but does not provide meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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's purpose: 'Estimate BPCS embedding capacity.' It explains the method (counting complex blocks across bit planes and channels) and output units (bits, bytes, percentage). This distinguishes it from siblings like bpcs_detect, bpcs_extract, and bpcs_complexity_map.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage is implied (when needing capacity estimation before embedding), but no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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