list_innerspace_floor_plans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses one failure mode (ValueError when the cloud API is not enabled or console_id is empty) and 'List' implies a read operation, but it is silent on pagination, permissions, or result volume.

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 purpose is front-loaded and short, but the docstring-style Args/Raises layout is only partly effective: 'settings: Application settings' is a tautology describing a phantom parameter, wasting one line, while the Raises clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the Raises clause covers a key precondition. The mention of a nonexistent 'settings' parameter and the absence of any note about the controller default (which lives only in the schema) leave the picture slightly incomplete.

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 50%: the schema documents 'controller' but not 'console_id'. The description compensates by explaining console_id's provenance (a Cloud Connector console UUID from list_hosts), which adds real meaning. However, it also lists a 'settings' argument that does not exist in the schema, creating confusion.

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 a clear verb (List) and a specific resource (InnerSpace floor plans) scoped to a console, which lets an agent distinguish it from the Other InnerSpace siblings like list_innerspace_switches and list_innerspace_access_points. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource is specific enough to route correctly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The only implicit help is provenance for console_id ('from list_hosts'), which hints at a workflow dependency but is not a usage guideline.

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