marker_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the API cannot switch fabrics, so the tool can only measure the currently exported fabric and returns a list of other fabrics to switch to. This is valuable beyond the schema and helps set expectations. It doesn't mention side effects or permissions, but the tool appears to be a read-only measurement operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output attributes, followed by a crucial limitation. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of the tool name.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining what the tool does, what it returns, and its limitation regarding fabric switching. It could be slightly more explicit about the return format or how the list of other fabrics is presented, but the essential context for calling the tool is present.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description compensates by explaining the implicit input: the currently shown marker in CLO's Print Layout Editor from a 1:1 PDF export. This is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool operates on, even though there are no explicit parameters.

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 measures the marker in CLO's Print Layout Editor, listing the specific attributes it reports (fabric, length, width, pieces, area, utilisation) and the input source (1:1 PDF export). It distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools by focusing on marker measurement rather than pattern creation, export, or fabric management.

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 explains the context: it works from a 1:1 PDF export and notes that CLO exports one fabric at a time and the API cannot switch it. It also says the result lists other fabrics to switch to in CLO, which implies when to use it and what to expect. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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