Detect floor/wall planes

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds useful behavioral details: results are cached per-scene and the endpoint is POST /planes. It also implies that force recomputation is possible, which aligns with the force parameter. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the core result in the first phrase, then adding endpoint/caching behavior and use cases. Every sentence provides useful information with no redundancy.

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 simple read-only, cached retrieval tool, the description gives enough context about output type, purpose, and caching behavior. The absence of an output schema is partly mitigated by 'plane candidates,' though a bit more detail about return shape would make it fully complete.

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 only 33%, with only 'force' documented. The description says 'cached per-scene,' which hints at scan_id, but it does not explain scan_id's role or the meaning of max_walls. The description does not compensate for the schema's missing parameter documentation.

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 title and description clearly identify a specific resource: floor/wall plane candidates derived from scene geometry. This distinguishes it from siblings like scene_list_objects, scene_ground_frame, and scene_measure_distance without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 names use cases ('restyle scoping and understanding room structure') but does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over related scene-analysis tools or when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than directly contrasted with alternatives.

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