check_interference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at the mechanism (bounding-box based, therefore approximate) but says nothing about whether the check mutates state, permission requirements, how results are reported, or the tolerance's effect.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the sparseness reflects missing content rather than tight editing.

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 zero schema-description coverage, the description is the only source of truth, yet it omits return semantics (does it list interfering pairs?), tolerance meaning, and usage context. Inadequate for a 2-parameter analysis tool.

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% for both parameters. The description never explains assembly_id (which assembly is inspected) or tolerance (units, direction, default behavior), leaving the most consequential input entirely 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+resource ('check component interference') and adds the method ('transformed component bounding boxes'), so the agent knows this is a geometry-collision check. It does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling check_clearance, which an agent would need to disambiguate the two.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus check_clearance or measure_minimum_distance, no prerequisites (e.g., assembly must exist/populated), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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