check_interference

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation targets the active assembly and reports volumetric collisions only, but says nothing further (e.g. whether it requires an open assembly or how many components are scanned).

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?

A single clean sentence with zero filler and the object of the check front-loaded. Its brevity costs a little specification, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With rich annotations, an output schema covering results, and no parameters, the definition needs little more than stating scope. Only the prerequisite (an active assembly with multiple components) and the relationship to 'check_model' are left implicit.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to explain and the description correctly avoids inventing any.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Checks the active assembly') and narrows the check to 'volumetric interferences (collisions) between components', which tells an agent exactly what is being tested. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'check_model', which plausibly overlaps.

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?

Scope ('active assembly') implies the context in which it applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to 'check_model' as the alternative for broader validation. Usage must be inferred.

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