deck_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's "Read-only" is restatement. The value-add is real though: it discloses the return shape ("a text table") and, importantly, the unit semantics — spec units, real-world metres only when the spec carries a `scale`. That is non-obvious behavior an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what is tabulated before the use case and the units caveat. The parenthetical about scale is worth its space; a couple of clauses could be tightened, but there is no filler.

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?

With an output schema, rich annotations, and full parameter documentation, the description only needs to supply intent, units, and usage — all present. It is complete enough to invoke correctly; only the lack of sibling routing keeps it short of 5.

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 reinforces the station/transom semantics of `step` and explains the `y` default that `spec`/`patch` can control, but it adds no format or precedence detail beyond what the schema already documents for spec, patch, design, preset and spec_path.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Tabulate the deck at stations from the transom") and enumerates the three quantities returned: deck height above keel, the default `y` for a superstructure box, and deck half-beam. That is far more specific than the name alone. It does not, however, contrast itself with near neighbours like preview_hull or analyze_hull, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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?

"Use it to place turrets and deckhouses on a sheered deck instead of guessing heights" gives a concrete positive use case and implies the alternative (estimating). There is no explicit when-not or named sibling to prefer in other situations, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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