Spr auto layout

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

Annotations declare readOnly=false and idempotent=false, and the description substantiates this by describing the full created topology, so the agent knows a mutating build occurs. It stops short of warning that repeated calls will duplicate the network (a key consequence of non-idempotency) or how it interacts with existing sprinklers.

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?

Front-loaded with the concrete build specification, followed by workflow guidance, then a compact rule reference. Efficient overall, though the '[bulc-mcp rules] SPR-001...' tag is cryptic without expansion.

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 no-output-schema mutation tool, it adequately describes what is created and the downstream sequence. It omits edge-case behavior (existing networks, resultant node/pipe IDs the agent could reuse) but still gives enough to call it correctly.

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 100%, so all eight parameters are already documented with units and defaults. The description adds geometric context (corner placement of the water source, cross-main at x=xMin, spacing-driven grid) that maps to xMin/yMin/spacing parameters, but this is marginal above the baseline given the complete schema.

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?

States a specific action (automatically build a sprinkler pipe network) and enumerates exactly what it constructs: water source at (xMin,yMin), cross-main along x=xMin, one branch line per row, grid sprinkler nodes with heads, and all connecting pipes. This clearly distinguishes it from granular siblings like spr_add_pipe or spr_add_node.

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?

Explicitly names the intended follow-up workflow (run spr_run_calc, then spr_apply_to_fds to push into FDS), which tells the agent its place in a pipeline. It does not, however, distinguish when to use this versus spr_import_network or building manually, so exclusions are absent.

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