calculate_excavation

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It states inputs and outputs but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond basic calculation (e.g., read-only, no side effects, error conditions). The description is straightforward but minimal for a tool without annotations.

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?

Three sentences front-load purpose, then usage context, inputs/outputs, and a pointer. No wasted words, but could be more concise (e.g., remove 'Use for construction' if obvious). Still efficient.

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 tool's simplicity, high schema coverage, and presence of output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, inputs, outputs, and a cross-reference. Missing details like output format or precision are likely covered by schema, so no major gaps.

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%; each parameter has a description. The description adds limited extra meaning: mentions 'bulking factor' but schema explains via soil_type enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters well.

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 excavation volume and truck loads for foundation, pool, or trench construction. It uses a specific verb ('Compute') and resource ('excavation volume, truck loads'). However, it mentions 'bulking factor' as an input while the schema uses 'soil_type' with swell factors, which may cause minor confusion.

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 says 'Use for construction' and suggests seeing list_bundles for related calculators. This gives context but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings like calculate_concrete_mix or calculate_garden_soil. No exclusions or alternatives are specified.

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