check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses caching, 'never unioned', UNRESOLVED distances inside tessellation error bounds, exit_code 0/1/2, full-turn certificates, and SCAD expression evaluation in model scope. This goes well beyond the raw schema.

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 text is dense and information-rich with no fluff, but it is structured as a single run-on paragraph mixing mode definitions, inline type hints, and examples. Bullet points or mode-separated blocks would make parsing significantly easier.

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 core invocation paths, all mode semantics, expression evaluation, and edge-case behavior like UNRESOLVED and exit codes, while an output schema handles return-shape details. Still, several input parameters are left unexplained, so the agent may need to guess at their meaning.

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 successfully explains mode values, the parts record structure, check_file contents, quality options, and volume behavior. However, many schema properties such as pairs, against, steps, tolerance_mm, response_format, and include_paths remain undocumented, leaving partial compensation.

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 states a specific purpose: checking relations between named parts in an assembly, and enumerates six distinct modes (interference, clearance, contact, alignment, motion, rules). It clearly distinguishes this from simple syntax validation, though it never explicitly contrasts with sibling tools like check_openscad.

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 clear internal usage context: choose a mode such as 'interference' or 'clearance', supply parts or a check_file, and interpret exit codes. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings like check_openscad, scad_eval, or measure, so cross-tool selection guidance is only implied.

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