quantity-takeoff__calculate_takeoff

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses return structure (net, waste-adjusted, purchase quantities) and caveats (planning estimate, not guaranteed). It also hints at locked waste and purchase rounding behaviors.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a parenthetical prefix. It front-loads the purpose and avoids unnecessary detail, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 covers purpose, input type, output, and limitations, but lacks parameter-level details (e.g., what items array should contain, options usage) and error handling, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that items come from geometry or measurement payloads, but no details on options or payment_ref. This partial coverage leaves significant gaps.

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 uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('auditable material takeoff') and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_assembly or verify_result by specifying the input source (explicit geometry or measurement payload).

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 implies when to use the tool (when you have geometry or measurement payload for takeoff) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among siblings.

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