spatial_content_selection_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states 'read-only', which is critical for safety. It also mentions 'prepare placement handoffs', indicating it returns data for later use. However, it does not describe edge cases (e.g., empty selection, filtering behavior) or the nature of the output beyond 'handoffs', though an output schema exists to cover return format.

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 exceptionally concise: three sentences plus an example. The purpose is front-loaded, the read-only nature is immediately stated, and the KB reference is a useful pointer without clutter. No wasted words; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's role.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: it does not explain what 'placement handoffs' contain, what prerequisites exist (e.g., assets must be selected), how tags and data_layer_names filter the selection, or how placement parameters affect the output. With 7 parameters and no annotations, an agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional documentation. The KB reference helps but is not a substitute for in-description guidance.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only provides an example using placement_layout and tags, giving minimal insight into parameter meaning. The other five parameters (limit, data_layer_names, placement_origin, placement_spacing, actor_label_prefix) are only known by their schema titles, which are somewhat self-explanatory but lack concrete semantics. The description adds little value over the schema titles, failing to explain parameter interplay or filtering logic.

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 verb ('read'), the resource ('selected Content Browser assets'), and the outcome ('prepare placement handoffs'). It also includes a concrete example and explicitly labels itself a 'read-only bridge', which distinguishes it from placement-execution tools like spatial_place_selected_assets. The purpose is unambiguous and well differentiated 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 positions this as a preparatory step in a dry-run-first spatial placement workflow, implying it should be used before placement operations. It also references a knowledge base section for best practices. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so while the context is clear, exclusions are left to inference.

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