get_detected_planes

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds value by detailing the returned data (positions, orientations, boundaries, classifications). It does not contradict the annotations and provides context beyond what annotations alone offer.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the purpose and follows with specifics. Every sentence contributes meaningfully.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists the returned data types. However, it does not mention preconditions (e.g., that plane detection must be enabled) or potential performance considerations. Given the tool's simplicity and good annotations, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all six parameters, so the description adds little new information about parameters. It indirectly relates to some parameters (e.g., classification) but does not directly explain them. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Gets information about all currently detected planes in the environment.' It specifies what is returned (positions, orientations, boundaries, classifications), making it easy for an AI agent to understand the action and resource. The sibling tools are unrelated, so no confusion.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that it should be used when plane detection data is needed, but no exclusions or conditions are mentioned. With many siblings not related to plane detection, this is a minor gap.

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