production.bake_analyze_ray_distance

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful traits beyond annotations: it is deterministic, bounded, avoids enormous automatic distances, and produces ray-miss witnesses and explicit ray/cage proposals. No permissions or return-format details are needed because an output schema exists.

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 compact and front-loads the core sampling operation before listing outputs. The trailing 'No enormous automatic distances' earns its place as a behavioral constraint, though the dense noun-phrase style makes it harder to parse than necessary.

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 tool has an output schema and annotations covering safety, so return values and side-effect profile are adequately covered. However, the input schema has zero parameter descriptions, and the description does not compensate for the missing meaning of the required 'relationship' argument or the optional 'options' object.

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 explain the two parameters. It does not clarify the required 'relationship' parameter or the 'options' object. The LOW/HIGH phrasing only weakly implies that 'relationship' pairs the low-poly and high-poly meshes.

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 names a specific analysis operation: sampling LOW triangles against a HIGH BVH to compute signed front/rear distance, normal angle, nearest deviation, and ray-miss witnesses. It is jargon-dense but distinguishes this tool from generic bake validation or cage generation siblings by focusing on ray-distance analysis and explicit ray/cage proposals.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no sibling alternatives are named. The phrase 'No enormous automatic distances' hints at a bounded-analysis use case, but an agent must infer the workflow context and when to choose this over bake_validate or bake_generate_cage.

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