Encode a crate code

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral nuance the annotations lack: values are snapped to 1/16 inch and are not raised to the minimum, i.e. no silent floor enforcement. It stops short of explaining failure behavior for out-of-range values or anything about the resulting code.

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?

It is short and not padded, but it is a sentence fragment rather than a structured statement, and the parenthetical caveat is the only substantive content. Brevity here reflects under-specification more than disciplined editing.

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 described, but for an 8-parameter tool with four opaque booleans and no usage routing, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine from it what the code means, what the options do, or why it would choose this over parse_crate_code.

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 coverage is only 50%: w/h/l carry 'inches (inside)' and quantity is described, but the four booleans (lid, full, heavy_floor, forklift_base) are completely undocumented. The description's word 'options' does not disambiguate any of them, so the semantic gap on half the parameters is left unfilled.

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 artifact as a 'configuration code for inside sizes and options,' which gestures at the resource but never states a verb like 'encodes/generates.' It gives no signal that separates it from the obvious inverse sibling parse_crate_code, leaving the agent to infer direction from the tool name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as parse_crate_code or quote_crate_by_code. The only hint is an implicit 'given dimensions, produce a code,' which is inferred rather than stated.

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