physics_collision_detection

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

The description only states the commercial license requirement and does not explain the tool's behavior upon collision detection. There is no mention of side effects, return values, or operational details beyond the parameter names. With no annotations, this is insufficient for 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 extremely concise (one sentence) but omits essential information about usage and behavior. While brevity is valued, it sacrifices completeness for conciseness.

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 lacks critical information about the tool's behavior, including how collision detection works, the role of precision and elasticity, and what the callback function receives. Without output schema, more description is needed for completeness.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), providing basic meaning. The tool description adds no further semantic detail. Thus, it meets the baseline expectation but does not exceed it.

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 it performs collision detection, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not clarify how this tool differs from sibling physics tools like physics_2d_simulation or physics_draggable. The purpose is clear in isolation but lacks distinction in the tool suite.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over sibling physics tools. It only mentions a license prerequisite but does not explain usage context or conditions.

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