enable_plane_detection

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, consistent with the mutation described. However, the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects on the spatial mapping system, whether prior state matters, or if enabling plane detection impacts performance. With only one annotation, the description should provide more context but remains minimally adequate.

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 two sentences with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the primary action and then details the surfaces detected. This is efficiently concise.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and the description does not explain return values or state changes (e.g., whether previously detected planes are cleared), the description is somewhat sparse. It covers the basic toggle action but lacks completeness for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's impact without additional context.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond the overview of detection types. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not reduce cognitive load but also does not mislead.

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 enables or disables plane detection for spatial mapping, specifying detection of horizontal (floors, tables) and vertical (walls) surfaces. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like enable_meshing or get_detected_planes.

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 implies usage when plane detection is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to use enable_meshing instead), no prerequisites, and no conditions where it should not be used.

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