check_interference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the two-stage algorithm, the threshold-based reporting rule, the zero-volume exclusion, and the meaning of the `clean` result. Not disclosed are cost/performance on large assemblies or that the operation is non-destructive (only implied).

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation, then the threshold rule, then the exclusion and result flag. No filler, and the return-detail clause stays brief.

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-shape explanation is not required, and the description still adds result semantics usefully. For a three-parameter geometric query the only real omission is the meaning of `objects` and any note on cost, which keeps it from a 5.

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 explain all three parameters. It only explains `tolerance_mm3` (pairs above it are reported). `doc` and especially the optional `objects` list — which presumably restricts the tested solids, though the text says 'every pair of solids' — are never mentioned or reconciled with the described behavior.

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 precise verb and resource ('Pairwise interference test' on solids) plus the exact method — bounding-box prefilter followed by intersection-volume computation. This distinguishes it clearly from volumetric/clearance siblings such as check_clearance without needing to name them.

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?

Gives a clear usage condition implicitly (every pair whose bounding boxes touch) and an explicit exclusion: 'Face contact (zero volume) is not interference.' It also defines the success signal (`clean: true`). It stops short of routing the agent between this and a clearance check, which would be the fifth point.

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