room_list_walls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real data-model behavior: free_segments exclude door/opening spans with a 5 cm jamb margin, windows do not cut a wall, min_free_length_m filters by longest free run, and long listings are capped. It omits any read-only/permission framing, but for a room-scan query that 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-loaded with what is listed, then layered with the free-segment rules and the filter parameter. It is dense and slightly long, but nearly every sentence encodes a non-obvious rule, so little is wasted.

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?

For a moderately complex listing tool with an output schema and no annotations, it covers the field semantics, the filtering parameter, and the free-segment computation rules, which is enough for correct invocation. The only gaps are the undocumented units/path parameters and no explicit safety framing.

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 largely does: min_free_length_m is explained precisely (hides walls whose longest free run is shorter), detail's "full" behavior is noted, and load_options is cross-referenced to room_summary. The units and path parameters are left unexplained, though units is self-evident from its enum.

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 precise verb and resource ("List the walls") and enumerates exactly what each entry carries (label, id, length, height, direction, free segments, objects along the wall). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like room_list_openings and room_list_objects, since it is scoped to walls specifically.

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 use cases: "find a wall for a bed, sofa or bookcase" and "map 'the wall behind the sofa' to an id." That is strong context, but it names no alternative tool or when-not condition (e.g., vs. room_list_openings or room_summary).

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