daz_get_spatial_relationship

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 explains the coordinate system, angle conventions, and output structure in detail, providing comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear title, explanation of angle system, args, and returns. It is detailed but not verbose, with every sentence adding value.

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?

Given the output schema exists, description does not need to explain return values, but it provides an example. The tool is simple with two required string parameters, and the description covers them thoroughly.

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 0%, so description adds all parameter meaning. It explains that node1_label is the reference node and node2_label is the target relative to node1, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 the tool gets spatial relationship between two nodes in natural language, listing specific outputs (direction, angles, distance, overlapping). It distinguishes from siblings like daz_calculate_distance and daz_check_overlap by providing a combined relationship description.

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 explains when to use it (to get spatial relationship in natural language) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. However, the sibling list implies other tools for specific aspects, so usage context is clear.

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