calculate_plaster

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It describes the calculation and return values but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects. The name suggests a pure calculation, but explicit transparency is missing.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence defines purpose and output, the second provides a pointer to related tools. There is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 has an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description lists return fields, covers both parameters with schema descriptions, and points to related calculators. It is complete for a simple calculator tool, though it could mention that it has no side effects.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description restates the parameters ('for a given surface and thickness') without adding new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. No additional semantic value is provided.

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's purpose: to calculate plaster volume and weight based on surface area and thickness. It specifies the output fields (area_m2, volume_m3, weight_kg, bags_25kg) and differentiates from siblings by referencing list_bundles for related construction calculators.

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 implies usage for calculating plaster quantities but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides a hint to related calculators via list_bundles, but lacks direct exclusions or conditions for use.

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