placement_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers substantial transparency: it states the tool is read-only, reveals that Azcuy blocks have geometry up to 186 m from their base point, explains the building frame is rotated 2.41 degrees, and notes conventions are copied from existing instances. It also describes what the return values will include.

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 compact block that front-loads the core purpose, then adds usage prerequisites, the three key problems, return contents, and read-only status. Every sentence provides distinct information with no filler or 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?

It is strong on purpose, usage timing, and behavioral quirks, and it summarizes return contents even though an output schema exists. However, it is incomplete as a standalone spec because all 7 parameters remain undocumented, and with no annotations the agent has no other source for parameter semantics; the complexity of the geometry logic makes this gap significant.

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 input schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. It discusses conceptual terms like block, layer, and scale, but never maps them to parameter names such as near_x, near_y, radius, or reference_block, so an agent cannot determine how to populate the arguments correctly.

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 computes where, with which rotation, scale, and layer the next drawing operation should go, inferred from what is already drawn. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly recommending running it before insert_block/draw_bathroom, and it enumerates concrete outputs like anchors, detected rows, free gaps, and a suggested insertion point.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Corre esto antes de cualquier insert_block / draw_bathroom sobre un plano existente.' It also explains why it is necessary by listing the three specific placement problems, and the phrase 'sobre un plano existente' implies it is not meant for blank drawings.

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