Packs rectangles into a fixed bin with the guillotine algorithm and returns x, y, width, height, and rotation flags for each placement.
Pack rectangles into a bin using the guillotine algorithm. Returns placements with x, y, width, height, and rotated flag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rects | Yes | ||
| width | Yes | ||
| height | Yes | ||
| padding | No | ||
| allowRotation | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It names the algorithm and lists returned placement fields, which is useful, but it does not state whether the tool mutates the document, what happens when rectangles do not fit, or whether padding and rotation are strictly honored.
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?
Two efficient sentences front-load the core operation and then summarize the return value. There is no redundant or wasteful text.
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 tool has five parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description partly covers the output fields, but it leaves input semantics and behavioral constraints under-specified for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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 must compensate for the five undocumented parameters. It implies that rects, width, and height are inputs to bin packing, but it does not explain the padding or allowRotation parameters or the rects object structure beyond the field names.
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 states a specific verb and resource: pack rectangles into a bin using the guillotine algorithm. It also names the return fields, making the tool's function clear and distinguishable from unrelated design tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling design_pack_circles.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as design_pack_circles, arrange_sketches, or auto_arrange. The context is only implied by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.