vastu_mandala_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does real work: it discloses the provenance constraint (Brihat Samhita 53.43-48), that 28 of 81 squares have no seated devata, and that polygon fitting is a computed convention rather than scriptural measurement. It does not mention input-validation failure modes (e.g., degenerate or self-intersecting polygons), which is the main remaining gap for a pure computation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the action in the first sentence, and the subsequent sentences are all substantive scheme definitions rather than filler. It runs slightly long and the embedded verse citation is dense, but every clause carries information an agent needs to pick a scheme.

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 three-parameter computation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return semantics ('Returns which mandala cell/devata falls where on the plot') and the interpretation caveat. Only edge-case behavior and the coordinate/units assumption (deferred to the schema) are absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema's terse 'Which mandala grid to project' by unpacking all three enum values and their content. The bearingDeg parameter is left entirely to the schema, which handles it adequately.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Project a Vastu Purusha Mandala grid onto a plot polygon', then defines each of the three schemes so the agent knows what output shape to expect. It never names or contrasts the closest siblings (vastu_audit_floor_plan, vastu_generate_plan, vastu_room_placement), so the differentiation work is left to inference.

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?

Scheme-level guidance is strong ('brahmasthan = just the central sacred zone that must stay unbuilt'), and it correctly cautions that fitting to your polygon is a computed convention rather than a classical measurement. But there is no statement of when to reach for this tool instead of the audit/placement/generate-plan siblings, so usage is only implied.

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