get_wall_types

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose the data content (name, material, fire rating) and the layers involved, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, that no side effects occur, or that it returns a listing of wall types.

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 contains no filler or redundant wording. The core subject and example fields are front-loaded and easy to scan. It is a sentence fragment rather than a complete statement, but the conciseness itself is strong.

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 zero-parameter read-style tool with an output schema present, the description provides the essential domain context: the source layers and example fields. It lacks an explicit statement about usage relative to set_wall_type, but that is a minor gap for a simple getter. An agent can reasonably infer how and why to invoke it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no argument semantics for the description to clarify. The schema is already complete, and the description provides relevant context about the data being returned. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate here.

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 identifies a concrete resource—wall types from the 'murs' and 'cloisons' layers—and gives example attributes (name, material, fire rating). It is clear what subject the tool deals with, though it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb phrase like 'returns' or 'lists'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling query tools, but the subject is distinct enough from tools like set_wall_type.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_wall_type, get_objects, or get_layers. The description mentions the source layers but does not explain prerequisites, intended workflow, or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and context.

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