blender_check_intersection

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds rich behavioral context beyond that: it explains the meaning of each contact_type, how contact_area_mm2 is calculated (half the intersection mesh's surface area), and how to interpret mean_penetration_um with specific thresholds. This gives the agent deep insight into what the tool does and what the results mean, without contradicting 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then an explicit distinction from a sibling tool, and finally a detailed but organized breakdown of return values. Every sentence earns its place, providing high information density without unnecessary repetition or fluff.

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?

The description covers all essential context: when to use, how to interpret results, and how it differs from related tools. Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema that presumably lists return fields, the description provides sufficient behavioral and interpretative detail. The only minor gap is parameter semantics, already scored low, but overall the description is complete for an effective agent invocation.

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?

The input schema has two string parameters with no descriptions, and schema coverage is 0%. The description only refers to 'two meshes' generically and does not explain that object_a and object_b should be object names or how they should be specified. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter documentation, leaving the agent to guess about valid values.

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 checks if two meshes physically overlap, using a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from the sibling tool blender_check_clearance by explicitly contrasting volumetric overlap with clearance measurement. The return types (NONE, SURFACE_CONTACT, VOLUMETRIC_OVERLAP) clarify the tool's purpose even more.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use after assembly' and states that separate parts should NEVER volumetrically overlap, indicating when this check is appropriate. It also explicitly names the alternative for non-touching objects (clearance), making the decision between tools clear.

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