run_space_clash_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool writes a JSON file with a specific schema, which is a useful side-effect. However, it does not explicitly state whether the analysis is read-only, whether it can overwrite files, or any prerequisites or failure modes, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose and then state the output. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

With 6 parameters and an output schema, the description explains the core purpose and output file but does not elaborate on the audit process or the contents of the findings JSON. It is adequate given the schema, but lacks broader context like when to choose this tool over siblings or what the findings look like.

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%, with each parameter clearly described (ifc_path, overwrite, duplicate_ratio, etc.). The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific value, only hinting at the output file naming pattern via `<stem>` from ifc_path. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool detects duplicates, overlaps, and double-modeled closets, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_space_boundaries or extract_space_inventory, which target different aspects of space analysis.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools, leaving usage only implied by the name and purpose.

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