nest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the written artifacts (job.json, layout.json, report.json, SVG/DXF per sheet, LBRN2 preservation), the repeatability guarantee tied to budget/seed, and outbound progress notifications. It does not mention permissions, what happens if out_dir already exists, or failure behavior.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and budget constraint, followed by side effects and return value. No filler clauses.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must cover returns, and it does indicate that independently checked metrics are returned alongside the artifact paths. 'Metrics' remains undefined in structure, but combined with the rich 100%-covered input schema it is complete enough to call correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description only restates the time_budget_s cap (300) and adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('nest') plus resource ('library parts on fixed sheets') with scope details (budget, artifacts). It is clearly distinguishable from estimate_sheets and export_layout without opening the schema, though it never names or contrasts a sibling 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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is evidently the actual nesting run, whereas estimate_sheets, export_layout and validate_layout are adjacent. No statement of when to choose this over alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. that library_path must come from import_parts) beyond a passing schema note.

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