Check Placement Clearance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific conflict categories, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as side effects or limitations.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the verb 'Classify' and lists the conflict types without any wasted words or redundant information.

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 combination of a detailed description, complete schema, and annotations provides a solid understanding of the tool's purpose, inputs, and safety profile. The only notable gap is the lack of usage differentiation from sibling tools, which is covered under usage guidelines.

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 100% for all three parameters, so the schema already fully documents refs, margin, and padClearance. The description does not add any parameter-level semantics, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Classify' with a clear resource 'placement conflicts' and enumerates five distinct conflict categories. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_courtyard_overlaps and check_clearance by scope and granularity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_courtyard_overlaps or run_drc. It implies usage for classifying placement conflicts but does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer the differentiation.

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