spatial_preflight_screenshot_detections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does a good job: it discloses validation/normalization of detected_items_json, checks crop-box coverage, confidence, and overlap quality, and emits a handoff. The phrase 'local planner' and the verb 'emits' imply a non-destructive, return-value operation, though an explicit read-only/no-side-effects statement would have been stronger.

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 with the core purpose, followed by a KB pointer, one clarifying behavioral note, and a short invocation example. Every sentence adds value and there is no unnecessary filler.

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 description gives useful pipeline context and a KB reference, and the output schema covers return-value structure. However, for an 8-parameter tool with no annotations, it does not fully explain the optional parameters or explicitly route the agent among the many spatial_* sibling tools. It is adequate but leaves clear 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 add meaning to parameters. It clarifies the core inputs reference_image and detected_items_json and references confidence/crop/overlap checks that map to several optional parameters. However, parameters like image_size, limit, and room_type are left unexplained, leaving meaningful ambiguity for the agent.

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 verb and resource: QA/validate screenshot detections before reconstruction and Tripo generation. It also clearly distinguishes the tool from computer-vision and reconstruction siblings by stating it is a local planner that validates agent/vision-supplied detections and emits a normalized handoff.

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 when-to-use context: it is a preflight QA step before reconstruction and Tripo generation. It also signals a when-not-to-use boundary by stating it does not perform computer vision. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or provide a decision rule, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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