blender_check_retention

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral process: translating a moving part by a displacement and checking intersection, and returning CAPTIVE or FREE. This is useful context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't state whether the translation is temporary (implied by read-only).

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 extremely concise: two sentences cover the operation, parameters, return value, and example use cases. Every sentence provides meaningful information with no redundancy or filler, and the key message is front-loaded.

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 output schema (CAPTIVE or FREE) and annotations cover safety, the description is fairly complete. It explains the method (translation and intersection), the direction format, and gives typical use cases. It lacks some details like whether the object position is restored, but the read-only annotation mitigates that. Overall, it's sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 explicitly defines `direction` values ('+X'/'-X'/'+Y'/'-Y'/'+Z'/'-Z') and indicates `displacement` is in mm. However, it does not explain `moving_object` and `static_objects` beyond implying their roles; the schema shows they are object names/arrays but the description leaves these somewhat implicit.

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's purpose: 'Verify a moving part is captive by translating it displacement mm in direction and checking intersection with static_objects. Returns CAPTIVE or FREE.' This uses a specific verb (verify) and resource (moving part retention), and the outcome is defined. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like blender_check_intersection by focusing on the retention concept.

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 provides concrete use cases: 'Use for: car body on axles, ball in socket, hinge pin in barrel.' This gives clear context on when to apply the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives, though sibling tool names imply related checks.

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