vastu_generate_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavior that it infers and places rooms itself and returns up to 3 ranked variants. It does not say whether this is a synchronous call or an async job (the vastu_job_* siblings suggest jobs exist elsewhere), how costly it is, or what the 'ranked variants' are ranked by.

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 compact clauses: the contrastive input mode is front-loaded and the return shape closes it out. There is no filler and every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the return only as 'up to 3 ranked variants' without describing what a variant contains or how ranking is decided. For a tool with nested, mandatory parameters and no annotations, that leaves meaningful gaps in what the agent can expect.

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%, so the nested plot and requirements fields are already documented in detail. The description adds a useful mental model (plot dimensions plus a room programme, BHK/bathrooms/parking/pooja) but no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 holds.

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 verb and resource ('Generate a Vastu-compliant floor plan') and scopes the input mode explicitly ('from a high-level brief instead of an explicit room list'). It is clear what it produces and how it differs from an explicit room-list approach, though no sibling tool is named so the distinction from vastu_room_placement must be inferred.

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 gives a clear selection condition: use this when you only have a high-level brief rather than an explicit room list. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to prefer vastu_room_placement or vastu_audit_floor_plan), so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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