get_spatial_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool can return 3D exports and summaries, but this largely restates the format enum and does not reveal extra behaviors such as cost, size limits, or how filtering interacts with exports.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose quickly. It is slightly dense because it compresses many output types into one list, but it contains no filler or repetition.

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 read-only tool with zero required parameters and a fully described schema, the description is close to adequate. However, there is no output schema and no clarification of the less obvious formats like 'joint' or 'spatial_vlm', leaving some ambiguity about what the agent will receive.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description mentions gltf/obj and summary formats, which mirrors the schema's format enum, and adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 identifies the resource ('known world') and the action ('Return'), and it enumerates the main output forms: spatial layout, topological graph, 3D asset export, and environment summary. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_expected_view or query_entities, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a spatial layout, graph, 3D export, or summary of the world is needed. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives, so an agent gets only implied selection context.

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