Molding Pack Check

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description goes beyond by detailing the algorithm (sorted-dim compare for reorientation), defining void_fraction and billable_weight calculations, and listing the return object fields. It clearly discloses that it computes dimensional weight and uses a default DIM factor of 5000. This adds value beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose, then provides necessary formula details and output fields. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler. The structure is efficient and scannable.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description fully explains inputs, the algorithm, and the return object. It lacks explicit mention of units for mass_g (assumed grams from param name) and any error conditions, but these are minor. The description is complete enough for an agent to call correctly without ambiguity.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the semantics of part_bbox_mm and carton_mm as [l,w,h] mm arrays, mentions the default dim_factor of 5000, and implies mass_g is the actual mass (used to compute billable weight). It covers 3 of 4 parameters explicitly; dim_factor is described via the formula. This is strong compensation for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 verb ('Check'), the resource ('a part against a shipping carton'), and the additional output ('compute billable weight'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'moldability_screen' or 'fit_check' by focusing on packaging/carton criteria. The scope is unambiguous.

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 core functionality and formulas, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It implies usage for packaging/billable-weight assessment, but lacks explicit exclusions (e.g., 'Use fit_check for clearance analysis instead'). The context is clear enough for an agent to infer.

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