Verify that the minimum distance between two components meets a required clearance threshold; optionally scope component lookup to a specific assembly.
Check if minimum distance meets a clearance threshold. Accepts entity ids or assembly component ids; use assembly_id to scope component lookup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assembly_id | No | ||
| component_a | Yes | ||
| component_b | Yes | ||
| min_clearance | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state whether the check is read-only, what happens on failure (e.g., error vs boolean result), whether it requires the entities to belong to the same assembly, or any side effects. With a mutation-adjacent threshold check and zero annotations, this is a significant gap.
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 sentences that front-load the purpose and then add the id/scope clarification. No extraneous text, though the second sentence could be clearer about the id duality.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It omits return semantics (boolean vs error), units, and the relationship between component ids and assembly_id.
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 must compensate for all four parameters. It only clarifies that component_a and component_b can be entity ids or assembly component ids, and that assembly_id scopes component lookup. It does not explain the unit or semantics of min_clearance, nor whether component ids must be from the same assembly, leaving half the parameter space undocumented.
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 (Check) and resource (minimum distance vs a clearance threshold), which distinguishes it from generic measurement tools like measure_minimum_distance and check_interference. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those close siblings.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as measure_minimum_distance or check_interference. The second sentence hints that entity ids and assembly component ids are both accepted, but it does not explain when to pass an assembly_id or how the threshold check differs from a raw distance measurement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.