measure_minimum_distance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the result is approximate and derived from bounding boxes, warning the agent about precision limits, but it omits read-only status, return units/format, and behavior for overlapping or invalid solids.

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 wasted words; the purpose is stated first and the approximation method follows immediately.

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 should do more. It covers purpose and method but leaves the parameter format, return value, and units unspecified, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it without guessing.

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 0%, and the two string parameters solid_a and solid_b have no schema descriptions. The description only implies the inputs are the two solids, adding no expected identifier format, constraints, or meaning beyond that.

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 the specific verb 'measure' and resource 'minimum distance between two solids', and adds the method 'via bounding boxes'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling measure_distance or check_clearance, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use, when-not, or alternative is mentioned. The word 'approximate' hints at a trade-off, but the description does not route the agent between this tool and measure_distance or check_clearance.

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