crate_size_limitsCheck minimum inside size and standard or tall layout maximums for wooden shipping crates, and see when a larger size requires a custom quote.
Minimum inside size and the standard/tall layout maximums (bigger sizes are oversized: custom quote).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| heavy_floor | No | ||
| forklift_base | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that oversized sizes fall outside these limits and require a custom quote, which is useful domain context, but it omits units and any behavior tied to the two flags.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the key content (minimums, layout maximums) first and the escalation note parenthetically. It is appropriately sized, though the telegraphic phrasing leaves terms like 'inside size' slightly ambiguous.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. What is missing is parameter meaning and explicit selection guidance, leaving the definition only minimally complete for a tool whose output depends on two unexplained flags.
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 never mentions heavy_floor or forklift_base. These two boolean flags materially change the returned limits, yet an agent gets no explanation of what they mean or how they affect the answer, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 identifies the specific resource returned (minimum inside size, standard/tall layout maximums) rather than restating the name. It gives enough to distinguish this reference-lookup tool from the quoting siblings, especially by noting oversized crates need a custom quote. No verb is stated explicitly, but the content is clear.
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?
It implies usage ('bigger sizes are oversized: custom quote') by routing oversized cases elsewhere, which is helpful. However it never states when an agent should call this tool versus quote_crate or crate_preview_svg, so the routing is only partial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.