calculate_sheet_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the result is rounded up to whole sheets, how waste_percent is applied, or any edge-case behavior such as zero or negative area. 'Whole sheet count' hints at rounding but does not make it explicit.

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. It conveys the core action and the two key calculation inputs ('sheet dimensions' and 'waste') economically.

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 calculator with an output schema and defaulted parameters, this is minimally viable: an agent can infer the intended inputs and purpose. However, the lack of formula-level detail, rounding behavior, and usage guidance leaves notable gaps for a tool that has no annotations or schema descriptions.

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 the schema's silence. It mentions 'sheet dimensions and waste,' which maps loosely to sheet_width_ft, sheet_length_ft, and waste_percent, but it does not explain area_sq_ft or clarify how the parameters interact in the calculation.

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 identifies the action ('Calculate') and the output resource ('whole sheet count'), and the phrases 'explicit sheet dimensions and waste' signal the tool's calculation scope. This is distinct from sibling tools like calculate_surface_area or calculate_linear_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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calculate_surface_area or calculate_linear_pieces. The description states what it computes but not the context or exclusions that would help an agent choose it confidently.

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