Spaces by floor area

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), yet the description adds real behavior: areas are normalized to square metres after unit conversion, and spaces lacking any area quantity land in `notes` instead of being silently dropped. That 'no answer vs. no data' distinction is exactly the kind of context an agent cannot infer from annotations, though result ordering and any result caps remain unstated.

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?

Three short paragraphs: purpose first, then unit semantics, then quantity resolution. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess, and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 eight optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk ambiguities: unit normalization and where unmeasured spaces end up. Minor gaps remain — the defaults for include_subtypes and the interaction between `type` and `storey` filtering are left entirely to the schema.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description goes beyond it by explaining that min/max thresholds are applied post-unit-conversion and by spelling out the resolution order for `quantity` (explicit, then NetFloorArea, GrossFloorArea, Area). That fallback chain is not derivable from the schema's one-line parameter description.

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 and resource ('Spaces whose floor area falls inside a range') plus a concrete example ('rooms below the 8 m2 minimum'). The area-threshold framing cleanly separates it from siblings like bim_quantity_rollup and bim_elements_by_type, which do not filter on area ranges.

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 example use case makes the intended scenario concrete, and the quantity fallback paragraph tells the agent how the tool behaves when the caller is unsure which quantity to name. It does not, however, explicitly name an alternative sibling or state when-not to use it (e.g. vs. bim_quantity_rollup for aggregated totals).

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