spatial_compile_worldbuilding_readiness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it declares itself 'local/read-only' and explicitly lists excluded side effects. It also states what it reports, giving the agent a clear expectation of behavior despite no annotation metadata.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose, KB pointer, behavioral scope, and a concrete invocation example. It avoids filler while giving an agent enough orientation to attempt a call.

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 gives a good high-level scope and example, but with 24 undocumented parameters and no annotations it leaves the agent to infer parameter mapping and the meaning of the require_* flags. The KB reference helps, but inline parameter guidance is missing for such a large input surface.

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 description coverage is 0% across 24 parameters, yet the description only gives a high-level 'consumes any subset of Ghost spatial workflow outputs' and a single example. It does not explain what individual JSON inputs mean, how require_* booleans behave, or how parameters relate to the workflow outputs.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Compile end-to-end readiness for spatial worldbuilding.' It further clarifies the exact outputs (gates, blockers, next actions, viewport evidence handoffs) and contrasts itself with mutation/vision/Tripo tools, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling spatial tools.

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 clearly states this is a local/read-only compiler that consumes Ghost spatial workflow outputs, implying when to use it in the pipeline. It also states what it does not do (mutate Unreal, run vision, submit paid Tripo jobs), though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or precise when-not-to-use conditions.

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