check_interference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that — the 'independent native SOLIDWORKS engine' backing and the unit conventions (mm, degrees, kg) — but says nothing about cost, runtime, or whether a rebuild is required before checking.

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?

Three short sentences with the action front-loaded, so it is far from bloated. However, 'Inspect verified measurements and error evidence' is phrased as an instruction to the caller rather than a description of behaviour, and the engine-provenance sentence is marketing-adjacent filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back — it only gestures at 'verified measurements and error evidence' without saying whether that is an interference list, a clearance value, or an error log. Combined with the missing scope statement, an agent cannot predict the result shape before calling.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The unit note is a small bonus for interpreting results rather than inputs.

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 verb+resource ('Check interference') is identifiable, but the scope is left unspecified — the description never says whether it checks the active assembly, all bodies, or a selection, and with zero parameters that ambiguity matters. It also offers no differentiation from near-neighbours such as check_motion, check_printability, or measure_distance.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no precondition (e.g. an assembly must be active), and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer from the name alone whether this is the right inspection tool among the many verification siblings.

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