check_clearance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behavioral traits: exactness, that results are threshold-filtered and sorted by distance, that closest points are included, and that 0 means touching/overlapping. It omits cost characteristics of an exact all-pairs comparison and any auth/permission context.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core behavior (all-pairs minimum distance, exact) front-loaded and the interpretive caveat plus sibling pointer trailing it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be spelled out, and the description still covers threshold semantics and the ambiguity of zero distance. The remaining gap is that a 3-parameter tool leaves objects entirely unexplained and gives no sense of computational cost for a non-annotated analysis call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does define report_below_mm's meaning (pairs closer than that threshold) but never mentions the objects parameter, which silently scopes which solids are compared, and gives no hint about the required doc argument.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: computes the exact minimum distance between every pair of solids and returns sub-threshold pairs sorted with closest points. It also explicitly separates itself from check_interference ("use check_interference for volume"), so an agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the volume/interference case to check_interference and explains what distance 0 means, which is a genuine usage cue. It does not say when to narrow the search with the objects parameter or when this check is unnecessary, so guidance is strong but not complete.

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