spatial_preflight_candidate_clearance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it declares the operation read-only, says it builds conservative candidate bounds, compares against live actor bounds, and explicitly disclaims physics simulation. It does not cover behavior such as failure modes or cost, but the key safety and mode traits are 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?

The description is compact and well ordered: a one-line purpose, a KB pointer, a two-sentence behavior explanation, and a concrete invocation example. Every line 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?

Given nine parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, this high-level description is insufficient for reliable invocation. It lacks the expected format of composition_plan_json, the meaning of actor_query relative to actor_label/class filters, units for clearance_padding, and the roles of the filter parameters. The output schema covers return values, but input semantics remain a major gap.

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, but it only implies semantics for composition_plan_json and actor_query through the example. The other seven parameters (limit, tag_filter, class_filter, include_hidden, clearance_padding, room_analysis_json, ignore_actor_labels) receive no explanation beyond their titles/defaults.

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 opening line uses a specific verb and resource: 'Check planned placement candidates against live actor bounds.' It further distinguishes the tool from mutation/spawn tools by calling it a 'read-only preflight' and a 'planning gate, not a physics simulation,' so an agent can differentiate it from siblings like spatial_apply_composition_plan or spawn_actor.

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 clearly states when to use it: 'before any spawn/mutation step' and as a preflight planning gate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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