Sprawdź pakowanie razem dwóch towarów

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does so by explaining that unambiguous codes yield a hard verdict, while ambiguous codes return both descriptions for interpretation. This is valuable behavioral nuance beyond a simple 'checks compatibility' statement.

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 compact: one sentence states the purpose, and one sentence adds the important behavioral nuance about verdict types. It contains no filler and is easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior and the output ambiguity aspect. It could mention exact return formats or edge cases, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to use the tool in the intended context.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context about mixedPacking code format and example values, but parameter meaning is already fully covered by the schema. No significant additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 names a specific action (checks whether two goods can be packed together) with a specific resource (mixedPacking codes) and gives a concrete example. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, none of which address mixed-packing compatibility.

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?

It is clear that this tool is for deciding whether two goods with mixedPacking codes can share a shipment item. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are given, but the context is specific enough that an agent can infer when to call it.

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