room_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that each measurement carries a value, ~95% tolerance, confidence and display string, that detail="full" adds names/sources and lifts list caps, and that nothing is remembered across calls. Return-format detail is partially redundant with the output schema, keeping it below a 5.

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 primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by dense but informative parameter and output notes. Some output-format detail overlaps the existing output schema, which is minor waste, but nothing is padded.

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 a 4-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers inputs, output shape and cross-tool state (room_load_scan) thoroughly enough to call it correctly. The only shortfall is the absence of selection guidance relative to the many sibling tools.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: path is the scan file, units drives the display string, detail="full" expands measurement metadata and lifts caps, and load_options is defined as room_load_scan's non-empty return object. All four parameters get meaning beyond their bare titles, though enum values are not individually unpacked.

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 opener states a specific resource and enumerates what the summary contains: footprint shape and vertices, floor area, ceiling height, volume, wall lengths, openings and objects. An agent can grasp what it returns without opening the schema. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like room_list_walls or room_list_openings.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative. Usage is only implied, mainly through the conditional note that load_options should be passed only if room_load_scan returned a non-empty object, which hints at the intended workflow but not at tool selection.

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