vastu_audit_floor_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the tool accepts every room in a single call and returns per-room compliance status, severity, remedies, and an overall score. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or whether it stores anything, but the audit-oriented framing strongly implies a non-mutating evaluation.

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 front-loaded sentences: the first defines the primary action and output, and the second immediately handles the alternative-tool routing. There is no filler and nothing structurally out of order.

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 single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies what is needed: the operation, the output shape, the batching behavior, and the sibling alternative. An agent can invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds useful framing by emphasizing that rooms must be passed 'with the compass zone it actually occupies.' This reinforces the schema's intended usage beyond what the field descriptions alone provide.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Audit an entire floor plan for Vastu compliance') and clearly differentiates this from the single-room sibling. It also summarizes the return payload (per-room verdict, severity, remedy, overall score), so an agent can tell exactly what this tool produces.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent: use this tool for a whole floor plan in one call, and use vastu_room_placement instead if only a single room needs guidance. That is a clear when-to-use and when-to-use-alternative statement, leaving little to inference.

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