quantity-takeoff__list_material_pack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the domain ('auditable construction material takeoffs') but does not specify if the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires permissions, or any constraints. This leaves the agent uncertain about safety and prerequisites.

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 the first providing domain context and the second listing output fields. It is reasonably concise and avoids redundancy, though the structure could be improved by directly stating the tool's primary function first.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential information about what is listed. However, it does not clarify whether it lists all packs or a single default, nor does it mention any ordering, pagination, or filtering capabilities, leaving some gaps in understanding.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by listing the output fields (version, digest, coverage, shapes, etc.), which compensates for the lack of an output schema, helping the agent understand what data will be returned.

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 verb 'List' is present but the object is ambiguous. The description says 'List the bundled material pack version, digest, coverage...' which could be interpreted as listing details of a single pack rather than multiple packs, especially compared to sibling tools like 'list_assemblies' and 'get_material_pack'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify that 'list_material_pack' is for enumerating all material packs while 'get_material_pack' retrieves a specific one, or how it relates to 'list_assemblies'.

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