check_interference

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

The description indicates it provides detailed interference detection results, but since no annotations exist, it should also mention read-only nature or any side effects. It does not cover performance or modification aspects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 description is concise with two short sentences. The first sentence states the action, and the second provides context. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the nested object parameters and presence of an output schema, the description covers the purpose and importance. It is nearly complete, though could mention the output schema briefly. Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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?

Clearly states the tool checks for geometric interference between components in an assembly, a specific and distinct action among many siblings. The description makes it immediately evident what the tool does.

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 mentions it is critical for assembly validation and design conflict identification, providing context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like analyze_geometry.

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