contact_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and succeeds: it discloses the algorithm (bounding boxes first, then real intersection on throwaway copies), non-destructiveness via throwaway copies, verdict semantics, and limitations (box gap is a lower bound, leading to possible false CONTACT on diagonal near-misses).

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 information-dense and fully front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes either algorithmic detail, verdict definitions, or an accuracy caveat; no wasted words.

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 description covers the full workflow, verdict meanings, orphan implications, and a numerical limitation. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required here; the description is complete for an agent to select and confidently invoke the tool.

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 description explains that 'clearance' is the bounding-box proximity threshold initiating the expensive intersection step, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It doesn't specify units or valid range, but the default in the schema and the contextual explanation suffice for this single parameter.

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's purpose: determining which instances in an assembly touch, interfere, or contact nothing. It distinguishes itself from sibling assembly/intersection tools by defining specific verdicts (INTERFERENCE, CONTACT, CLEAR, ORPHANS) and the assembly-wide scope.

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 opening 'Who touches whom in the assembly' provides clear context for when to use this tool. It gives guidance on interpreting CONTACT vs INTERFERENCE and what ORPHANS mean, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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