condosplit_schema

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

The description states this is a 'Visualizza' operation, implying a read-only action, and discloses what the user will see: an ASCII schema, floors, interiors, labels, and stair access. However, with no annotations, it does not detail potential errors, file requirements, or any side effects; for a visualization tool this is mostly adequate but not exhaustive.

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 two short, focused sentences with no filler. The main function is stated immediately, and the second sentence adds a useful detail about stair access without bloating the definition.

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 visualization tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the core action and expected output content despite lacking an output schema. It does not explain when to choose this tool over siblings, but the simplicity and self-contained nature keep it reasonably 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 100% for the single optional parameter, including its default value. The description itself does not mention config_path, but since the schema already documents it thoroughly, the description adds no extra semantic burden.

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 tool's purpose: displaying an ASCII graphic schema of the condominium building with floors, interiors, and labels, and highlighting which units have stair access. It uses a specific verb ('Visualizza') and resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools by name.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like condosplit_coordinates, condosplit_split, or condosplit_types. The context implies a visualization/inspection role, but there is no explicit usage condition or rationale.

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