get_innerspace_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the large payload size (~66 KB), that data is returned verbatim, that sensitive device metadata (meta.mac/meta.ip) and asset URLs are included, and precisely how 3D vs 2D mode changes geometry.

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?

Every sentence carries distinct information: result scope, payload contents and size, routing advice, then parameter definitions. It is structured with clear labels for host/mode and no filler.

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 an output schema present and both parameters fully documented in prose, the description covers what the tool returns, why it might not be the right choice, and how mode affects the result. No operational guidance needed for selecting and invoking the tool is missing.

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 input schema has no property descriptions, but the description fully compensates: host is explained as console name, ID, or MAC:numericId composite, and mode is explained with its default, allowed values, and geometric consequences. An agent can construct correct arguments from the description alone.

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?

States a specific action ('Return') on a specific resource ('full InnerSpace floor-plan project geometry for a console') and lists concrete contents. It also distinguishes itself from get_innerspace_summary by noting the summary is preferable for inventory-only needs.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to prefer get_innerspace_summary when only an inventory is needed, because this payload is large. It also specifies the two mode variants and when each is appropriate, giving clear selection criteria.

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