fusion_check_interference

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions one exclusion (coincident faces) but does not disclose whether this is a read-only analysis, what it returns, how it handles errors, or any side effects. The minimal detail leaves the agent guessing about the tool's runtime behavior.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose and the key exclusion, achieving clarity through brevity.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks information about return values, possible errors, what happens when entities are invalid, or how the interference results are presented. An agent cannot confidently call this tool based solely on the description and schema, as the required parameters are only minimally explained.

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 for parameter meaning. It hints that 'entities' refers to bodies/occurrences, which adds some semantic value, but it does not explain the format, expected values, or how document_id is used. The description is insufficient to fully understand the parameters.

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 a specific verb (Analyze) and resource (interference between explicit bodies/occurrences) with a distinguishing qualifier (excluding coincident faces). It is clear about the tool's function, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like fusion_validate_design.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or what distinguishes it from other analysis tools. The description only states what it does without any context for selection.

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