check_interference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the computed outputs, which the output schema already carries; it discloses nothing further about behavior such as cost, limits, or failure modes.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the return payload called out explicitly. No filler or redundancy.

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 output schema exists and the description redundantly restates the return keys, so return values are covered. However, for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the description leaves the caller guessing about argument formats, which is a real completeness gap.

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% for all three parameters. The phrase 'two objects' loosely maps to obj_a/obj_b, but nothing explains whether these are names, IDs, or paths, and doc_name is never mentioned. The description does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Check two objects for interference') and enumerates the exact quantities computed (distance, common volume), so the agent knows precisely what it gets. It does not name or contrast itself against the closest sibling, measure_geometry, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Use it to verify clearance or detect collisions' states the intent that selects this tool, giving clear usage context. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when plain measurement suffices), so it is a solid 4 rather than a 5.

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