extract_space_inventory

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool writes a JSON file, but does not mention potential side effects like overwriting behavior, error handling, or whether it modifies the input IFC file. This is minimal transparency for a write operation.

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 very concise, using two short sentences to convey the tool's core function and output. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes the output file name and schema, making it efficient without excessive detail.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks usage context, such as prerequisites (e.g., valid IFC path) or why one would choose this tool over siblings. It is adequate for a basic understanding but falls short of full contextual guidance.

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 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all six parameters, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. It does not explain the parameters' purpose beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score.

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 clearly indicates the tool creates a room-by-room inventory with zones, naming, and model freshness, and writes a JSON file. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like check_space_boundaries or compute_surface_loss, but the purpose is specific enough to avoid confusion.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_space_clash_audit or extract_envelope_surfaces. The description lacks any conditional context or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implied by the tool's purpose.

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