nest_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the measurement discrepancy (uses exported 1:1 layout, not CLO's fabric length), the fresh-session quirk requiring Printing Layout mode, and the UI click fallback behavior. It also hints at error messaging. This is substantial transparency, though it does not explicitly flag the mutating nature of nesting or return format details.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the primary purpose and outputs are front-loaded, followed by a critical caveat about the empty layout and the fallback behavior, then a compact args list. No redundant phrases; the structure is logical and efficient.

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?

For a complex tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the operation, return content (length, width, pieces, utilisation), and important caveats (measurement source, session initialization). It could be more explicit about side effects (permanent layout changes) and return format (JSON keys), but these are minor given the clarity provided.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does: each of the five parameters is described in the args list, e.g., 'buffer_spacing_mm: Space between pieces.' and 'fabric_width_mm: Usable fabric width in mm.' Some explanations are terse (e.g., 'fabric_index' implies ordering but not how to obtain the index), but all are addressed, providing meaning 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Auto-nest the pieces in CLO's print layout and report the marker shown there', listing the exact output fields. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'set_nesting' or 'marker_report', though the combined action is evident.

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 provides contextual guidance on when to set 'allow_ui_click' based on the empty-layout behavior, and notes the need for Printing Layout mode. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'clo_ui_nest_all_fabrics' or 'marker_report', leaving the comparison implied.

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