room_list_openings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers a genuinely useful caveat: RoomPlan door sizes may be leaf size rather than clear opening, so tight doors should be tape-measured. It also discloses the downstream compatibility rule for check_doorway. It does not state permissions or output scope, but for an obvious read-only list tool that gap is minor.

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-loads the return content in sentence one, then filters and caveats. Every sentence carries information (filters, cross-tool constraint, measurement warning). The mid-sentence parenthetical '(see room_check_fit)' and the run-on filter sentence make it slightly denser than ideal.

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 no explanation, and the description instead spends its space on the things structured data cannot carry: the door-size caveat, the natural-language wall_id behavior, and the check_doorway compatibility rule. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the two non-obvious parameters: ''kind'' enumerates all four valid values, and ''wall_id'' is revealed to accept natural-language phrases ('longest wall', 'wall behind the sofa') with examples, which the schema cannot convey. ''load_options'' is delegated to room_summary; ''path'', ''units'' and ''detail'' are left to self-explanatory enums, so it is strong but not fully compensating.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List doors, windows and open passages') and immediately enumerates the returned attributes (width, height, sill, head height, wall, position, swing side), so an agent knows exactly what this returns versus room_list_walls or room_list_objects. The scope is unambiguous without opening the 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?

Gives concrete filtering guidance ('filter by kind or wall_id') and a real cross-tool constraint: only door/opening/gap_unknown entries are usable with room_check_doorway. It points to room_check_fit for natural-language wall references. It never states when NOT to use this tool (e.g. use room_list_walls for wall geometry), so it stops short of a 5.

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