blender_check_clearance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of the default clearance value and the consequence of exceeding it (parts fuse), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., a number, boolean, or report) or how it behaves beyond the threshold check, leaving a gap in behavioral transparency.

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?

The description is two short sentences with the main idea front-loaded. The first sentence defines the tool's purpose, and the second provides practical context for the default parameter. There is zero wasted wording, and each clause earns its place. This is excellent conciseness for a tool with a simple input schema.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description leaves key invocation details unclear. It does not specify acceptable formats for object_a and object_b, which are required parameters, nor does it state what the tool actually returns (pass/fail, distance, list of violations?). Given the tool has similar siblings and the agent must select and call it correctly, the lack of these details makes the description incomplete. The FDM context is useful but does not cover the operational essentials.

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. It does clarify min_clearance_mm by providing the default's meaning and typical usage, which is helpful. However, it does not explain what object_a and object_b should be (e.g., object names, paths, or selected meshes), leaving the most critical parameters underspecified. The description partially compensates but not fully.

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?

The description states the core function as 'Minimum gap between two objects', which clearly identifies the metric being checked. The added context about the default 0.3mm being typical FDM print-in-place clearance distinguishes it from other check tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'checks' or 'returns'. It does not differentiate from sibling tools such as blender_check_intersection or blender_check_clearance_sweep, but the purpose is unambiguous enough.

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 implies usage in contexts where print-in-place clearance matters, noting that below 0.3mm parts fuse. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The 'when-to-use' is only inferred from the FDM print-in-place example, which is insufficient for an agent deciding between similar check tools.

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