sch_free_space

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Find' and the phrase 'without collisions' imply a non-mutating search with grid alignment. However, it does not describe the return shape, behavior when no free space exists, or the optionality/default of 'near'.

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?

Two short sentences with the core capability first and the use case second. There is no filler, no repetition of schema properties, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out important invocation details: what the return value contains, how many candidates are returned, and what happens if no free rectangle exists. It is usable but not fully specified.

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?

The description adds useful meaning to w and h as mm dimensions and clarifies that near is a point. Since schema coverage is only 50%, this partially compensates, but 'count' is undocumented in both the schema and the description, and optional parameter behavior is not explained.

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 a concrete operation: find free, grid-aligned rectangles of a given w x h mm on a page, nearest to a point. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sch_lint or sch_render, which perform different inspection or rendering actions.

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?

'Use to place a new block without collisions' provides a clear use context and tells an agent when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the guidance is specific enough for selection.

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