calculate_volume

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

With no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral details. It mentions 'Returns volume in input-units cubed' but does not explain parameter dependencies per shape or error handling for missing dimensions.

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 sentences, front-loaded, no fluff. Efficiently conveys purpose, use cases, input/output hint, and reference to related tools.

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, the description is fairly complete for a simple calculator. However, it does not address edge cases, error handling, or the overlap with individual shape calculators among the many siblings.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'Inputs: shape + dimensions' but does not elaborate on which dimensions are required for each shape, adding minimal value 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 verb 'Compute volume' and specifies common 3D shapes. However, it omits some shapes from the enum (cuboid, pyramid) and does not differentiate from individual shape calculators like calculate_cylinder or calculate_cone, which are siblings.

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 gives context (geometry, packaging, construction) and references list_bundles for related tools, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the individual shape calculators, nor when not to use it.

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