calculate_roof_area

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact output structure (rafter_length_m, net_roof_area_m2, with_5pct_overhang_m2), which adds value beyond the input schema. However, it does not mention any side effects, rate limits, or required permissions, which are less critical for a calculation tool.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first clearly states the purpose and inputs, the second provides output fields and a reference to related tools. No wasted words, and critical information is front-loaded.

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 low complexity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and return values. It explains the three output fields with units, which is comprehensive for a calculation tool.

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 has full description coverage (100%), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter details beyond summarizing 'building footprint and slope angle', which does not exceed what the schema provides.

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 calculates roof surface area from building footprint and slope angle, and specifies the return fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'calculate_roof_truss' by focusing on surface area and overhang.

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 roof area calculation but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It references 'list_bundles' for related calculators, providing some context but no direct exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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