deck_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses units ('spec units ... real-world metres when the spec has a scale') and output semantics, but does not state side-effect profile, permissions, or whether it mutates the spec.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the returned quantities are front-loaded. It could be slightly clearer about the tool's operation, but it is well-sized.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the input schema has no parameter descriptions and the description covers only one of six parameters. For a 6-parameter computational tool, an agent lacks enough guidance on choosing between spec/design/preset/spec_path/patch.

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 0% across 6 parameters. The description only clarifies `step` ('every step metres from the transom') and indirectly `spec` via the scale note; it leaves `patch`, `design`, `preset`, and `spec_path` unexplained.

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 the resource and its returned quantities (deck height above keel, box y, deck half-beam along step from transom) and gives a concrete use case (placing turrets/deckhouses). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling hull/preview tools, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use it to place turrets and deckhouses on a sheered deck,' giving a clear context for invocation. It provides no when-not conditions or named alternatives, so it misses the top level.

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