calculate_area

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It states the tool returns area in input-units squared, implying a non-destructive calculation. This is sufficient for a computational tool, though it could mention that no data is modified.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and use cases. Every sentence adds value, and the reference to list_bundles is concise. No redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, use cases, and return format, but lacks guidance on which dimensions are required for each shape. The schema has optional parameters, but the description could clarify the mapping between shapes and needed inputs.

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 100% with all parameters described. The description adds 'shape + dimensions' but does not elaborate beyond the schema. The schema already provides good descriptions, so the description adds minimal value.

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 computes area for common 2D shapes, listing examples and use cases like geometry, real estate, and paint estimates. It distinguishes itself from numerous sibling calculate_* tools by being specific to area.

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 the tool (geometry, real estate, paint estimates) and points to list_bundles for related calculators. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other calculations like perimeter.

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