preview_interior

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses output behavior (floors above the main deck are cropped to their rooms) and the content of the per-room report, but never states that this is a non-mutating read/preview, nor covers failure modes when interior data is absent.

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?

Front-loaded with the output description and tight overall; every clause adds information (output anatomy, prerequisite, cropping rule, param delegation). Slightly dense but no filler sentences.

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?

Rich output description compensates for the missing output schema, and the workflow prerequisite is stated. However, with 5 zero-coverage params, no annotations, and one parameter (`preset`) unaddressed, the definition leaves real gaps for an agent to guess around.

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 0% across 5 params, so the description must compensate. It partially does so by deferring design/patch/spec_path to preview_hull ('as in preview_hull'), but leaves `preset` completely unexplained and gives no format details for any parameter.

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 names the exact artifact (a cutaway interior render) and enumerates what it contains: a centreline section, a labelled deck plan per room level, and a per-room report with specific fields. This is distinguishable from sibling preview_hull without opening either schema.

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 trigger ('Use after adding `interior` to a spec') and points to hull_design_guide's 'Interior design' section for workflow context. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming a competing alternative beyond the implicit contrast with preview_hull.

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