spatial_infer_placement_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses 'intentionally local and read-only' and 'without mutating Unreal Editor,' giving the agent a clear safety profile and distinguishing it from mutating tools. It does not cover output format or error behavior, but the core behavioral trait (non-mutating dry-run) is well disclosed.

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?

Three focused sentences plus an inline example with zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the read-only nature is stated early, and the KB reference and example are placed after the core claim. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete on purpose and safety but weak on parameter guidance, leaving most parameters undocumented. The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is covered elsewhere. The KB pointer mitigates some gaps but does not enumerate parameter semantics.

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 provides a concrete example demonstrating asset_paths and intent, plus a KB reference for policy details. However, it leaves 6 of 8 parameters (tags, policy, layout_hint, base_spacing, data_layer_names, actor_label_prefix) entirely unexplained, which is a notable gap given zero schema-level descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair: 'Infer a clean-room placement policy and dry-run handoff arguments.' It then states it 'prepares arguments for Ghost's spatial placement tools without mutating Unreal Editor,' which clearly separates this planning tool from mutating siblings like spatial_apply_composition_plan and spatial_place_selected_assets. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 establishes usage context by labeling itself 'intentionally local and read-only' and a 'planner' that prepares arguments for downstream placement tools, implying it is the pre-application step. However, it never names specific alternatives or states explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use conditions relative to the many other spatial_* siblings.

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