calculate_wallpaper_rolls

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

The description clearly states it returns roll count and length needed, which covers the main output. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the burden, and it adequately discloses the tool's safe, computational nature. It does not mention any destructive actions or side effects, which is appropriate. No contradictions with annotations.

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, 40 words, with the first sentence stating the purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. Each sentence adds value: purpose, context, inputs, outputs, and cross-reference to other 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?

The description covers the basic purpose, inputs, and outputs. However, the discrepancy about pattern repeat (claimed but missing from schema) introduces ambiguity. For a simple calculator with an output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete due to the misleading information.

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 description claims pattern repeat is an input, but the input schema does not include a pattern repeat field. This is a direct contradiction between the description and the schema, causing confusion. Despite high schema description coverage (100%), the misleading mention of a non-existent parameter severely undermines parameter semantics.

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 for a room including pattern repeat and waste. It uses specific verbs ('Compute') and resources ('wallpaper rolls'), and distinguishes itself from sibling calculators (e.g., paint, fabric) by mentioning pattern repeat. It also guides users to 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 advises to use for renovation, providing a context of use. It suggests seeing list_bundles for related calculators, implying alternatives exist. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention exclusions or specific scenarios where this tool is unsuitable.

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