spatial_analyze_room

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states this is read-only and does not mutate the Unreal Editor scene, which is a key behavioral trait. It also discloses the use of bounds/name/tag heuristics, adding transparency about methodology. However, it does not mention potential limitations like behavior on empty selections or performance characteristics.

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 relatively concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes a KB reference and an example, which are useful. It could be slightly more focused, but the structure is logical and efficient. The inclusion of the KB link adds a bit of extra noise, but overall it is well-organized.

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 (9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It fails to document parameter semantics, does not describe the output structure (though an output schema exists, it doesn't clarify what fields are returned), and offers only a minimal example. Agents lack critical information to call the tool correctly with the right filters and settings.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for all 9 parameters. It does not explain any of them: limit, room_type, tag_filter, actor_query, class_filter, include_hidden, prefer_selected, clearance_padding, min_walkway_width. The example uses only room_type and actor_query but does not define their semantics or units. This leaves agents to guess parameter meanings, making the tool difficult to invoke correctly.

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 infers room dimensions, surfaces, zones, and clearance risks from live actors, and that it produces a planner-ready room model. This is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing read-only analysis and heuristic methods, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The example further clarifies usage.

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 gives context: it turns selected or filtered level actors into a room model for interior composition, surface probing, and validation. This implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives. The KB reference and example provide some guidance, but no exclusions or comparisons to the many spatial_* siblings.

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