get_innerspace_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a lightweight inventory call that returns counts/structure rather than the full payload, and it surfaces the multi-floor caveat (floors do not share a coordinate origin). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the 'inventory' framing and the caveat disclosure provide meaningful behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and return shape, then provides usage guidance, a behavioral caveat, and compact parameter explanations. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no repetition or 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description covers everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly: purpose, lightweight nature, key caveat, both parameters with semantics, and how it relates to sibling get_innerspace_project. The multi-floor caveat is especially valuable contextual detail that would not be inferable from the schema.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains that host can be a console name, ID, or composite ID with an explicit format (MAC:numericId). It also clarifies mode values, the default ('3D'), and the practical difference ('device shapes carry real metric mounting heights'). This is substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inventory') and names the exact resource: a console's InnerSpace floor-plan project, explicitly noting it avoids the full payload. It also lists the returned structure (shape breakdown, per-floor plans, dictionary sizes, project metadata). It clearly distinguishes itself from get_innerspace_project by directing agents to call this first when only presence/overview is needed.

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 is explicit about when to use this tool: 'Call this before get_innerspace_project when you only need to know what's present.' It names the alternative tool directly and gives a clear selection condition, which is exactly the kind of routing guidance an agent needs.

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