spatial_infer_screenshot_scene_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the non-segmentation behavior, the required input source, and the kind of output (reconstruction handoffs), which is valuable. But it does not state whether the operation is read-only or mutating, whether it invokes external services, or what the returned handoff contains.

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 main purpose, and every sentence adds either a behavioral constraint, pipeline context, KB reference, or invocation example. It could be improved with explicit parameter bullets, but it is not bloated.

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 core workflow is well sketched and an example is provided, which is useful for a spatial-pipeline tool. However, without annotations or schema descriptions, the agent still lacks guidance on optional parameters, expected input JSON shape, and the precise contents of the handoff, so completeness is only adequate.

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 gives meaningful context for reference_image, detected_items_json, and image_size via prose and the example, but never explains limit, room_type, or include_reconstruction_handoff. For a 6-parameter tool, leaving several parameters semantically opaque is a real gap.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('infer') and resource ('spatial scene graph from screenshot detections'), and the body clarifies the pipeline role: consumes detected_items_json and emits reconstruction handoffs. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, and 'clean-room' is jargon, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Gives clear context: use this local planner when agent/vision-supplied detected_items_json is available and you need inferred spatial relationships and reconstruction handoffs. It also states a negative constraint ('does not perform image segmentation'). However, it never explicitly names alternative spatial_* tools or states when-not-to-use relative to them.

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