calculate_concrete_volume

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 does not mention side effects, determinism, or safety. The disclaimer 'not engineering advice' is a quality caveat, not behavioral disclosure. The tool is a pure calculation but that is not stated.

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 very concise and front-loaded, effectively stating the core function in one sentence. However, it omits necessary details like parameter units and waste_percent, making it too sparse to be fully useful. The caveat adds a slight disclaimer but no operational value.

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 simple volume calculation, the description lacks essential input details (units, waste_percent meaning). An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but input semantics are incomplete. An agent would need to infer parameters from the formula, which is not explicit.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only implies that length, width, and depth relate to volume, but does not explain units, the waste_percent parameter, or its default. No specific 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 clearly states the tool computes cubic yards for a uniform rectangular pour, a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling calculations (sheet count, linear pieces, surface area). The caveat 'not engineering advice' adds a clear scope 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. The description only implies it is for uniform rectangular pours, but does not address non-uniform shapes or when to choose other calculations. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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