spatial_preflight_interior_layout

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It states that this is a local preflight check rather than a live Unreal operation and describes the exact spatial criteria it inspects, implying a non-destructive analysis. It does not explicitly mention side effects or prerequisites, but the verb 'checks' and the word 'preflight' make the safety profile reasonably clear.

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 front-loaded: a purpose line, a scope paragraph, and a concrete invocation example. There is no filler, though the KB pointer is terse and would benefit from a short inline hint about what it contributes.

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 a six-parameter tool with no parameter descriptions or annotations, the description gives a useful behavioral overview and points to a KB section, while the output schema presumably covers return values. However, it lacks the JSON plan format, units for padding/walkway values, and explicit prerequisites or relationship to spatial_plan_interior_composition/spatial_validate_placement, so it is not fully self-contained.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage across six parameters. The description only shows composition_plan_json in the example and never explains its internal structure, nor does it map pairwise_padding, clearance_padding, min_walkway_width, room_analysis_json, or include_suggestions to the listed checks. This is a significant gap for a JSON-based tool.

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?

Opens with 'Preflight an interior composition before editor placement,' giving a specific verb, resource, and lifecycle phase. The following sentence enumerates concrete checks (room bounds, prop footprints, pairwise spacing, zone fit, support-surface hints, circulation risks) and the phrase 'before ... validated in live Unreal' differentiates it from validation/placement siblings.

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 explicitly situates the tool in the pipeline: use it before editor placement or live validation, and identifies itself as a 'local planner.' It does not name sibling alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance, but the intended workflow position is clear.

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