list_wall_planes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the non-obvious 1.5mm clustering tolerance, the X/Y-only alignment constraint, and the unit convention (metres), while implying a read-only listing. It stops short of describing return shape details or any permissions/scale limits, so it isn't fully transparent.

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 core action and grouping rule, then parenthetical detail on tolerance, then scope limits. Every sentence contributes, though the density of parentheticals makes it slightly heavy for a listing tool.

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 4-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the grouping algorithm, alignment filter, and units, and hints at the returned structure (grouped planes with each member's exact coordinate). It is nearly complete, missing only explicit return-shape detail and any mention of large-model performance.

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 coverage is 100%, so the enum for axis, the group nesting/uniqueness rules, recursive, and min_height defaults are already documented. The description only adds the global unit convention ('all lengths and coordinates in metres'), which is useful but marginal beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 verb (List) and resource (vertical wall-like faces in a group) plus the grouping semantics, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_entities or list_components. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

It clarifies the scope (vertical faces only, X/Y aligned, not diagonal) and notes it replaces manual scripting, which implies usage context. But it never states when to prefer this over list_entities or how it relates to move_plane/remap_planes siblings, leaving selection to inference.

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