open_reference

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states a non-modification guarantee, reports length and rotation units, and documents the coordinate system orientation, which are meaningful operational details beyond simply 'inspect'.

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: main purpose first, then units, coordinate system, non-modification assurance, and a concrete example. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler or unnecessary repetition.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, this is nearly complete. It covers the operation, relevant units, coordinate conventions, non-modification behavior, and an example call. The main missing piece is guidance on when to use it relative to sibling tools, but that is a usage guidance gap rather than a core invocation gap.

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 provides no description for sample_sh3d_path, and the description only partially compensates by referring to a reference .sh3d file and showing an example value. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but path format, source location, and expected file semantics are not fully specified.

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 identifices the coerce as inspecting a reference .sh3d file and populating the furniture catalogue cache. It uses a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('reference .sh3d file'), and the non-modification statement helps distinguish it from mutating siblings like create_project and delete_element.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_project or when it should be called before add_furniture. It includes an example invocation, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria are stated.

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