spatial_plan_interior_prop_program

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool is 'local/read-only,' does not mutate Unreal, and does not submit Tripo jobs, which is exactly the side-effect information an agent needs before calling it.

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 and well-structured: a purpose sentence, a KB pointer, a concise transformation statement, a side-effect disclaimer, and a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. The description covers purpose, when to use it, input categories, non-mutation guarantees, and an example. However, with 15 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, more parameter-level guidance would be needed for full contextual completeness.

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 adds meaning by naming the input categories and gives an example using functional_zone_plan_json and required_props, but most of the 15 parameters are not explained and the expected JSON formats for string parameters are left vague. This is adequate but incomplete.

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 and deliverable: 'Plan a zone-aware interior prop program before composition.' It then states the exact transformation from room analysis, functional zones, screenshot detections, user-required props, and known assets into a per-zone fixture/furniture/clutter/fill program, clearly distinguishing this planner from downstream composition or mutation 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 gives clear usage context by saying 'before composition' and explicitly lists when-not behavior: 'It does not mutate Unreal or submit Tripo jobs.' It does not name sibling alternatives directly, but the phase and read-only boundary make the intended usage reasonably clear.

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