spatial_surface_probe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is read-only, uses public Unreal Python trace APIs, and returns data rather than mutating scene state. This is meaningful transparency, though it does not mention potential performance costs of large grids or failure behavior when no surface is hit.

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: the first sentence states the core behavior, the second adds workflow and output detail, and the example provides a concrete call shape. Every sentence contributes value without unnecessary padding.

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 tool with 11 parameters and zero inline schema descriptions, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly in all intended cases. It explains the overall purpose and gives a simple example, but leaves major parameter semantics undocumented despite the high parameter count and absence of annotation support.

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 illustrates center, grid_count, and grid_spacing via an example. The remaining eight parameters—such as trace_up, trace_down, points, limit, trace_channel, placement_offset, and ignore_actor_query—have no semantic explanation in either the schema or the description.

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 states a specific action ('Probe surfaces with downward traces') and the result ('return placement locations'). It also names concrete outputs ('surface normals, hit actors, and placement handoff templates'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools such as spatial_validate_placement or spatial_query_actors.

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 useful context by saying this tool 'adds surface awareness to Ghost's dry-run-first placement workflow,' which implies when it is relevant. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or complementary tools.

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