calculate_pyramid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It returns volume and surface area but does not disclose behavior for missing optional parameters (slant), units, or edge cases. The inconsistency between described inputs and actual schema reduces 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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the formula and purpose. No extraneous information, though the optional slant detail is present but not in schema.

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 an output schema exists (not detailed), return values are partially covered. However, the description fails to fully document behavior due to parameter mismatch and lack of guidance on the optional surface area calculation. Adequate for a simple tool but with notable 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?

The input schema already describes base_length and height with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds the formula and mentions 'base area' but does not clarify that base_length is the side length. It does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 pyramid volume with a formula, indicating geometry/architecture use. However, it mentions inputs 'base area' and 'optional slant for surface area' which do not match the actual input schema (base_length and height only), causing slight inconsistency.

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 vague usage context ('Use for geometry or architecture') and a referral to list_bundles for related calculators, but no explicit guidance on when to use this over the many sibling geometry tools. No when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned.

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