check_intersection

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral details, but it only states that it returns intersection points. It does not explain whether this is a read-only operation, behavior for non-intersecting entities, or the return format, leaving significant 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 brief and front-loaded, with three short phrases. The final phrase 'The anti-collision check' adds some context but is slightly redundant, though overall it is efficient.

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 no annotations and a sparse schema, so the description needs to clarify handle semantics, return values, and edge cases. It fails to do so, making the tool under-specified despite an output schema existing.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain handle1 and handle2. It refers to 'two entities' but fails to map them to the parameters or clarify what a handle is, providing no help to the agent.

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 tool checks for intersection/overlap between two entities and returns intersection points, using a specific verb and resource. This differentiates it from siblings like bool_intersect, which performs a boolean operation rather than a query.

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 gives a vague hint that this is an anti-collision check, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or related tools.

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