viewer_list_clashes

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true; description adds context that it reads a specific file (clashes.json) rather than viewer data. No contradictions. Clarifies the non-destructive nature and data source.

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?

Two concise sentences covering purpose, data source, and key output. No extraneous content.

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 zero parameters, presence of output schema, and simple read-only operation, the description provides sufficient context. It mentions the critical return element (pnt_id identifiers) that aids tool selection.

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?

No parameters (schema coverage 100%). Description adds meaning by specifying that the return includes pnt_id identifiers for highlighting, which is useful 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?

Clearly states it reads clashes.json (data source) and returns clash data with pnt_id identifiers for highlighting. Distinguishes from viewer/IFC and sibling tools like viewer_highlight_clash.

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?

Explains the tool's input (loaded package's clashes.json) and output (pnt_id identifiers). Implicitly contrasts with viewer/IFC and highlighting tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives.

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