calculate_linear_pieces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Calculate' implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, and 'whole stock pieces' suggests integer rounding. However, it does not disclose how waste_percent affects the result, what rounding convention is used, or whether units must match.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately compact, though the brevity comes at the cost of behavioral and parameter detail.

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 calculation tool with three parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain the role of waste_percent, the rounding logic, unit consistency, or how to choose between this and the other calculation tools. The presence of an output schema helps but does not make up for the missing usage and parameter 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 0% and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. It does not explain required_length_ft, piece_length_ft, or waste_percent, nor how they interact to produce the whole-piece count. The property titles alone are not enough to fully disambiguate semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Calculate') and a clear resource ('whole stock pieces for a linear requirement'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like calculate_sheet_count and calculate_concrete_volume by scoping to linear materials, though it could be more explicit about the actual output being a number of pieces.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calculate_sheet_count or calculate_concrete_volume. The only clue is the word 'linear,' which implies the intended context but leaves the agent to infer selection criteria.

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