spatial_plan_interior_composition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a 'local planner', that it produces 'zone-aware placements', and that it involves 'guarded Tripo text/image generation and import steps.' Still, 'guarded' is vague, and the description does not clarify whether this tool actually executes generation/import side effects or only produces a plan with handoffs.

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 includes a useful example and KB pointer. There is slight redundancy between 'with Tripo handoffs' and the later 'guarded Tripo text/image generation and import steps,' but no significant bloat.

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 18-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is too thin to serve as a reliable invocation guide. It gives the gist and an example, but omits parameter semantics, pipeline positioning, side-effect expectations, and any guidance for choosing this tool over nearby spatial_plan_* siblings. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but does not make up for these gaps.

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 names high-level input categories (room dimensions, screenshot-derived observations, existing assets, style intent) and gives an example using room_type and style, but 18 parameters exist and most parameters (limit, omit_props, room_origin, content_path, required_props, prop_program_json, actor_label_prefix, room_analysis_json, screenshot_reference, functional_zone_plan_json, etc.) are left unexplained.

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 names a specific action ('Plan') and resource ('spatially coherent interior composition'), and adds a concrete data-flow sentence covering inputs and outputs. It clearly indicates what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like spatial_plan_interior_prop_program or spatial_apply_composition_plan.

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 phrase 'This local planner turns room dimensions, optional screenshot-derived prop observations, existing assets, and style intent into zone-aware placements' implies when the tool is appropriate, and the KB reference adds context. However, it never gives explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or contrasts itself with the many related spatial_plan_* and Tripo-generation siblings.

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