calculate_wallpaper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It mentions a 'pattern repeat factor' as an input, but this parameter is not present in the input schema (only perimeter_m, height_m, roll_width, roll_length). This discrepancy is misleading for an agent attempting to invoke the tool correctly. Key behavioral aspects like assumptions (e.g., standard window/door deductions) are not disclosed.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with purpose and use case. However, the third sentence contains an inaccuracy (listing pattern repeat as an input), which detracts from conciseness. Each sentence has intent, but the error reduces efficiency.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no enums, output schema exists), the description should provide a complete picture. It fails to explain how the calculation handles pattern repeats or if any assumptions are made. The missing parameter and lack of calculation details leave gaps for an agent.

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 the baseline is 3. However, the description claims 'pattern repeat' as an input, which contradicts the schema and undermines parameter understanding. It does not add meaningful semantic value beyond what the schema already provides (descriptions for each parameter). The misleading input reduces the score.

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 wallpaper rolls needed for a room, with specific mention of pattern repeat factor. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from general area calculators. However, there is a sibling tool named 'calculate_wallpaper_rolls' that is very similar, and the description does not differentiate between them, slightly reducing clarity.

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 includes a use case ('Use for renovation budget') and directs to 'list_bundles' for related calculators, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculate_wallpaper_rolls' or other construction calculators. The guidance is implied but not sufficiently explicit.

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