check_interference

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the return format (JSON with distance_mm, intersects, common_volume_mm3) which is helpful, but it does not mention side effects, prerequisites, or behavior when objects are missing or invalid. The lack of side-effect disclosure is acceptable for a read-like check, but not fully explicit.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear opening sentence, a usage sentence, and then structured Arg/Returns sections. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema but adds small value. No excessive verbosity, and the key purpose and context are 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?

The description covers purpose, usage context, arguments, and return values. Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema (return format), it is fairly complete. It could benefit from clarifying edge cases or how object names are resolved, but the essentials are present.

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. The 'Args:' section provides only trivial one-liners ('Document name.', 'First object name.', 'Second object name.') that barely exceed the schema property names. It does not clarify what types of objects are expected (e.g., part names, bodies) or the expected format, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 checks the spatial relationship between two objects, specifically distance and intersection (common volume). It includes a specific verb ('check') and resource ('spatial relationship'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like measure_geometry by focusing on interference detection.

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 explicitly says 'Use to verify clearance or detect collisions in multi-body configurations,' which provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives by name, but the guidance is specific enough to differentiate from similar measurement tools.

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