get_spatial_structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention error conditions (e.g., what happens if the model has no spatial structure) or performance implications for large models. The 'full spatial hierarchy' hints at the return structure but does not disclose whether it is a flat list or a tree.

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 a single sentence that is immediately informative and front-loaded with the key action ('Get the full spatial hierarchy'). There is zero fluff or redundant phrasing, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 simple getter with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and the expected hierarchy levels, which is useful. However, it lacks details about the return format (IDs vs. names, ordering, nesting), whether the operation requires a loaded model, and any limitations or prerequisites. Given the minimal sibling context, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the model_id parameter beyond saying the tool gets a hierarchy. The parameter's name and title ('Model Id') are self-explanatory, but the description fails to state that the model_id should reference a currently loaded model or how to obtain it. This is a gap that the description should compensate for given the low schema coverage.

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 a specific action (Get) and resource (full spatial hierarchy) with an explicit hierarchy chain (Project > Site > Building > Storey > Space). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_element_containment or get_model_statistics, which could be confused with spatial queries.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need the complete spatial hierarchy), but it does not provide explicit alternatives or exclusions. For example, it doesn't mention that get_element_containment might be more appropriate for querying specific containment relationships, nor does it state any prerequisites like having the model loaded.

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