interference_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the output is per-pair volume and that empty list means no interference, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether it is read-only or mutating, or any side effects like logging or affecting the document state, leaving ambiguity for a potentially analysis-only tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the additional detail about return value is crucial. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (interference analysis) and lack of output schema, the description explains the return value but misses key context: no mention of operating on the active document, whether entities must be in the same component, or error conditions. This meets the minimum but leaves gaps for an effective agent.

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 schema has only one parameter 'entity_names' with no description and 0% coverage, so the description must clarify its meaning. The description says '2+ bodies or occurrences', implying entity_names is an array of names for bodies/occurrences, but it does not specify the format (e.g., strings, IDs) or whether they must be in the active document. It provides minimal added value beyond the schema.

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 it runs an interference analysis on 2+ bodies or occurrences and returns per-pair interference volume, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'measure' and 'volume' by focusing on pair-wise interference, though it could be more explicit about how it differs from those.

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?

It implies usage for checking interferences between bodies/occurrences but does not state when to use it versus alternatives like 'measure' or 'volume' for distance or volume calculations. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or mention of prerequisites like needing an active document or selected entities.

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