spatial_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses some behavioral details (e.g., max 50 rays, area format, parameter dependencies) but does not clarify which actions are read-only versus mutating (e.g., snap_grid appears to write) nor describe side effects or return structures.

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 packs a substantial amount of information into a single concise paragraph, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Each action is listed with relevant parameters, and there is no redundancy. Readability could be improved with formatting, but it is 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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what any of the 16 actions return, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent. It also doesn't clarify potential write side effects for actions like snap_grid.

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?

While the schema covers 78% of parameters, the description adds crucial action-to-parameter mappings (e.g., 'raycast (filterList/filterType/ignoreWater)') that are absent from the schema. It also standardizes the area format and clarifies parameter alternatives (e.g., 'position or x/z').

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 explicitly states 'Spatial queries in workspace' and enumerates all supported actions, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like query_instances and manage_terrain by focusing specifically on spatial operations.

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 implies usage: it lists actions and area formats, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide any exclusion criteria.

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