photosensors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: dominant facade detection, zone building, sensor placement at sensor_fraction, mount orientation details, return format, .pts file writing, and required inputs. It does not cover failure modes or edge cases, but it is substantially transparent about what the tool does.

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 dense but efficient: front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then algorithmic steps, geometry details, outputs, and requirements. Every sentence conveys essential information with no filler.

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 complex geometric tool, the description covers the main workflow, output format, mount behavior, and required inputs. It even references methodology.md for deeper detail. It is not fully complete because several optional parameters are not explained, but it is adequate for a typical default call.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters, and it does for key ones: zone_rule, depth_factors, sensor_fraction, mount, workplane_h, material_map/sidecar, and the .pts output. However, it leaves several parameters unexplained (units, up_axis, task_height, north_angle_deg, work_dir), which is a meaningful gap for a 14-parameter tool.

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 is clear that this tool generates daylight-dimming photosensor points from an OBJ room: it locates, builds, and places sensors and returns point coordinates. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'sensors' or 'workplane_grid', but the specific algorithm and daylight-dimming context make the purpose sufficiently clear.

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 solid context: it applies to an OBJ room with a glazed facade, and it states that material_map OR sidecar is required to identify floor and glazing. It does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives, but the technical context and prerequisites give clear enough usage direction.

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