blender_check_clearance_sweep

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds behavioral context beyond this: it rotates the object, checks each step, returns worst-case clearance and the angle, and explains that passes=False means the joint WILL fuse. This enriches the agent's understanding of the simulation without contradicting the annotations.

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 succinct and well-structured. It starts with the core action, states when it's mandatory, provides a concrete illustrative example, and ends with the output significance. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (which likely documents the return fields) and rich annotations, the description covers the essential usage context, including the importance of the sweep and the interpretation of passes=False. It does not mention the axis parameter or the min_clearance_mm threshold explicitly, but the overall description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description has to explain the parameters. It clarifies inner_object (the one rotated), outer_object (implicitly the obstacle), steps (each step of rotation), and implies min_clearance_mm via the pass/fail threshold. However, it does not explicitly define min_clearance_mm or the axis parameter, so the agent must infer their exact meaning from context or the schema.

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 clearly states the tool rotates inner_object through 360° and checks clearance at each step, specifying both the action and the objects involved. It distinguishes itself from the sibling blender_check_clearance by adding 'sweep' and emphasizing rotation around a full circle, making it unique for articulating mechanisms.

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 says it is MANDATORY for any joint, hinge, or articulating mechanism, and provides a concrete example (a hinge may collide at 90°). This gives clear when-to-use guidance, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name an alternative tool like blender_check_clearance for static checks, so it stops short of a full 5.

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