calculate_concrete_mix

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'computes' and 'returns weights', implying a read-only calculation. However, it introduces a non-existent 'mix ratio' input, contradicting the schema and confusing the agent about what is accepted. This inconsistency undermines transparency.

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 relatively short (four sentences) and front-loads the purpose. However, the inclusion of 'mix ratio' is unnecessary and inaccurate, adding noise. A tighter, accurate version would score higher.

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?

Given the simple tool (one param, output schema present), the description covers the main purpose, inputs, and output. However, it fails to clarify that the mix ratio is fixed per NF DTU 21, leaving a gap that could lead to misuse. Completeness is adequate but not fully precise.

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% for volume_m3, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds a misleading claim about 'mix ratio' as an input, which does not appear in the schema. This does not add meaningful information; it creates confusion, reducing the score.

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 it computes cement, sand, gravel, and water for a concrete volume, referencing the specific standard NF DTU 21. This distinguishes it from other construction calculators like calculate_concrete_stairs. However, it incorrectly adds 'mix ratio' as an input, which does not exist in the schema, slightly muddying the purpose.

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 indicates use for construction projects and directs to list_bundles for related calculators, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare it to alternatives like calculate_concrete_stairs, leaving usage guidance incomplete.

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