check_contacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses output semantics in detail (deepest sample, median depth, share inside), which is valuable, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies anything, or any performance/permission characteristics.

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 a single well-structured paragraph that front-loads the state categories and then explains the overlap metrics with a concise illustrative example. It avoids repetition and the example earns its place by clarifying the difference between deepest and median depth.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description covers what the tool returns well enough for a human. However, it is incomplete for reliable invocation because the two required inputs a and b are never defined, and no side-effect or error behavior is mentioned.

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% for two required string parameters (a, b). The description says 'two meshes' but never maps these to a and b or explains expected identifier format (name, path, UUID, etc.), so it adds little beyond the schema's bare parameter names.

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 description states the tool returns a contact state between two meshes and enumerates the possible states (intersecting, touching, apart) plus depth metrics, which is more specific than restating the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like find_floating or check_mesh, but the focus on two-mesh overlap is clear.

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?

It provides a direct use case ('Use it to find floating or sunken parts') but no when-not conditions and no named alternatives among the many sibling tools. This gives implied usage but leaves the agent to infer when another tool (e.g., find_floating) might be better.

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