audio_spatial_layout_assessment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it modifies state, what it returns, or what side effects occur. The phrase 'preflight' suggests inspection but not explicitly. It also does not mention any safety or permission requirements.

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 sentence that is concise but under-specifies. It front-loads the main action but omits essential operational details. The brevity is not a virtue here because it leaves critical information to be inferred, making it more cryptic than useful.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, what constitutes an assessment, how BS.2051 compliance is evaluated, or what the expected format of results is. An agent cannot decide to call this tool confidently.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It mentions 'channel coordinates' and 'head-position metadata' but does not map these to the actual schema properties (channels, listener, headPositionMetadata) or explain their types, units, or constraints. The agent cannot infer what values to provide for azimuthDeg, elevationDeg, or the nested structures.

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 states the tool 'preflights immersive channel coordinates and head-position metadata', giving a verb and a resource. However, 'preflight' is jargon and it does not clarify what the assessment actually does (e.g., validates, checks bounds, compares to a standard). It also does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'audio_sofa_metadata_assessment' or 'car_channel_map_validate' that likely overlap in intent.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The warning about 'not overstating BS.2051 compliance' hints at a caution but does not explain when this tool is the right choice. The agent is left to guess if this is for validation, analysis, or reporting.

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