Cut list

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

With readOnlyHint=true already provided, the description carries a low safety burden and instead adds substantial behavioral detail: the 50 mm thickness rule, board finish and thickness semantics, no edge banding, skipped parts handling, merging criteria, and MDF/MDP material definitions. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives the agent a rich model of the tool's behavior.

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 information-dense and front-loads the core subject, but it is structured as a long run-on sentence with several parenthetical asides. The MDF/MDP material details, while useful, could be separated or moved without losing clarity. It is thorough at the cost of scannability.

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 fairly complex domain, the description is remarkably complete: it covers input scope, board derivation rules, row format, merging behavior, export alternatives, and material standards. The output schema likely covers return values, and the annotations cover read-only safety, so nothing essential for correct invocation appears missing.

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 input schema already covers the only parameter, ids, with a clear description of valid values and default behavior, so schema coverage is 100%. The main description adds domain context about what drawn groups and builds are, but it does not add direct parameter-level guidance such as id formats or selection constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource clearly: a cut list for joinery builds and hand-drawn groups, and it distinguishes cut_list from export_cut_list by stating that the latter writes the list to file. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'computes', leaving the exact action somewhat inferred rather than stated.

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 gives useful usage context: it applies to builds and drawn groups, defaults to all such groups on the storey, and points to export_cut_list for CSV/DXF/SVG output. It does not explicitly enumerate when to prefer this over other siblings, but the relationship to export_cut_list provides a clear distinction.

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