check_fit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains interference categories, contact exceptions, hole alignment rules, default hole_tol 0.2, joint-pair handling, stand-in treatment, verbose output, variant scope, and build-cache behavior. It does not explicitly state read-only/non-destructive side effects, so it falls short of complete behavioral transparency.

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 dense but front-loads the purpose and every clause carries technical meaning. It could be more readable if the nested parenthetical rules were structured separately, but length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 complex geometric check with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description supplies substantial detection rules and parameter behavior. It still lacks explicit routing guidance and does not explain the required name argument, leaving minor gaps.

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 explains hole_tol's default and meaning, fresh rebuilding, verbose listing passing pairs, and variant as one-or-all. The required name parameter is not explicitly explained, but most parameter semantics are covered.

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 purpose: checking how placed assembly pieces fit together, covering interference and hole alignment. It is clear and detailed, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as check or diagnose_failure.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. The detailed rules imply it is for fit validation, but the agent is left to infer the usage context.

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