create_grid_container

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 explains the creation behavior and mentions what gets returned, but doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, error conditions, rate limits, or whether this is an idempotent operation. The description adds value but leaves significant gaps.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Usage, Dimensions, Positioning, Returns) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place, though the 'Usage' section could be more concise by integrating with the opening statement.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (8 parameters, creation operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does and when to use it. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter coverage, it doesn't fully address behavioral aspects like permissions or error handling that would be important for a creation tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 8 parameters, the description compensates well by explaining the core parameters: 'Dimensions: Define exact grid size (e.g., 8x12 for 96-well plate)' clarifies rows/columns, and 'Positioning: Items placed at specific coordinates (row, column)' provides context. However, it doesn't address the other 6 parameters (name, description, tags, can_store_containers, can_store_samples, parent_container_id).

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's purpose with specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('grid-based container'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'grid-based' positioning. It provides concrete examples (microplates, freezer boxes) that help differentiate from other container types like list containers.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Create microplates, freezer boxes, or other position-specific storage'), which distinguishes it from general container creation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like 'create_list_container' from the sibling list.

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