ray_collision_with_mesh

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the operation is a query-like ray cast that returns all intersection points and is scoped to one mesh body. It does not explain coordinate frames, whether the ray is infinite or a segment, or what the return payload looks like, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. It consists of a single efficient sentence plus a parameter note, with no redundant filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 tool has 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description needs to provide more context. It covers the source of mesh_handle but omits the meaning of origin_mm and direction, the expected return structure, and any assumptions about coordinate systems. This is insufficient for fully safe invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only explains mesh_handle with a useable definition and source examples; origin_mm and direction are left entirely to name inference. No units, array length, axis order, or normalization details are given for the two geometric parameters.

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 the action: 'cast a ray against ONE MeshBody, return all intersection points.' It names the exact resource (one MeshBody) and distinguishes this from the sibling find_mesh_using_ray, which selects meshes rather than computing collisions against a specific mesh.

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 implies usage by stating the ray targets ONE MeshBody and gives examples of how to obtain a valid mesh_handle ('from find_mesh_using_ray or list_body_entities'). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions, leaving usage context mostly implied.

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