estimate_sheets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the approximation semantics (fast lower bound, guaranteed not to overstate), the failure-flagging behavior for unplaceable parts, and that rotation constraints are considered. It says nothing about error cases or the exact output shape, but the core behavioral contract is honest and 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core computation and followed by the caveat and the side-effect flag. No filler and every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter analytic tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the computation model, the interpretation of the result (lower bound), and the extra output signal (unplaceable parts). Only the required library_path input and any error/validation conditions are left unaddressed.

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% at the top level, so the description must compensate for library_path and request. It conveys the domain model (net part area vs. usable sheet area, allowed rotations) that implicitly frames parts/sheets/spacing, but never mentions library_path or the request envelope, leaving the two required inputs undocumented in prose.

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+resource (estimate sheets) and even the method: net part area divided by usable sheet area. It distinguishes itself conceptually from a true nesting tool by calling itself a lower bound, though it never names the sibling 'nest' explicitly.

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?

"For planning and quotes" gives a clear when-to-use context, and "necessary, not sufficient: real layouts can need more sheets" implicitly warns against using it in place of a real layout run. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to the sibling tool for actual layouts.

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