rs_check_collisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Run collision check' without any behavioral details such as whether the tool is read-only, modifies state, what happens on collision detection, or what the output format is. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or results.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is too brief and could be expanded with additional useful context without losing 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?

Given that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. A collision check is a significant operation; the agent needs to know what constitutes a collision, whether it's a simulation check, and what the return value is. The current description does not provide enough context for correct usage.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none. According to guidelines, baseline is 4 for zero params.

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 'Run collision check on station objects' uses a clear verb+resource structure. It specifies the action (run collision check) and the target (station objects), distinguishing it from siblings that perform other operations like reading or writing. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools, but the action is distinct enough.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool or when not to. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or context. The description merely states the function without helping the agent decide when to invoke it.

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