detect_collisions

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, non-destructive), and the description does not contradict them. It adds a small scoping detail—that detection applies to selected operations—but provides no further behavioral context such as whether it consumes the current selection or how results are reported. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and this meets it minimally.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded with the action and scoped with the target. It is somewhat under-specified, but as far as conciseness goes, it earns its place.

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 input schema is empty, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the core call shape is understandable. However, the description omits usage guidance and does not explain the dependency on current selection or how results are provided. It is minimally adequate but leaves meaningful context gaps.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds useful implicit meaning by indicating that the tool operates on 'selected operations,' which clarifies that the relevant selection state is external to the schema. It does not fully explain how selection is established, but it still adds value beyond the empty 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 the action ('Run collision detection') and the target resource ('selected operations'), making the tool's core purpose identifiable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar analysis tools like analyze_toolpath_risk or run_simulation, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as analyze_toolpath_risk, verify_change, or run_simulation. The phrase 'selected operations' implies a prerequisite, but it is never stated explicitly, and no alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned.

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