inspect_connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably: it discloses that tolerances must be justified, that gaps/misplaced endpoints are reported, and enumerates five capabilities it lacks to prevent misuse. It omits whether the operation is read-only or touches scene state, but 'inspect/measure' strongly implies non-mutating.

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?

Mostly dense but front-loaded, with the negative list earning its space by scoping expectations. The trailing 'Inspect close-ups too.' is abrupt and vague, slightly weakening structure.

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?

For a single-array-parameter inspection tool with no output schema, the description supplies the needed scope, tolerance guidance, and explicit exclusions. It is complete enough to call correctly, though return/report format is only implied.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the connections array in depth, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds real value on top by stating that tolerances must be justified from the design/scale, which is semantic guidance not present in the 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?

States a specific verb (measure/inspect) and resource (explicit attachment points against evaluated world-space geometry), and sharply distinguishes itself from a weaker technique (bounding-box checks) and from siblings like check_contacts by naming what it does not cover.

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?

Offers clear context on when this applies (attachment points vs evaluated geometry) and a strong negative list (does not discover partners, certify fidelity, compute penetration, sweep collisions, or simulate). It does not, however, explicitly name an alternative tool like check_contacts to route the agent.

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