check_interference

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose important behavioral traits: interferences from touching faces are suppressed (false negatives) and intended overlaps like gasket compression appear (false positives), plus how to disambiguate via volume/bbox. It stops short of stating whether the call is read-only or has any side effects or cost on large assemblies.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the key caveats, then a tight Args block with examples. Slightly verbose in prose but every sentence (touching faces, gasket compression) carries information an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

For a 3-parameter geometry query with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, caveats, set semantics, and even result interpretation. Missing only an explicit note that it is a non-mutating query and whether an active/connected assembly is required.

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 only 33% (only 'instance' is documented in-schema), but the description fully compensates for the other two: it gives concrete syntax and an example for set_a, explains the sub-assembly path form ('Asm:1/2'), and defines set_b's empty-value semantics. The remaining parameter is already covered by the schema.

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 specific verb and resource ('Check overlap between occurrences of the active assembly') and is clearly distinguishable from siblings like measure_distance or assembly_faces. It even scopes the semantics (touching faces excluded, intended overlaps reported), so an agent knows exactly what the result means without opening the 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?

Explains the empty-set_b case ('empty = everything else') and how to interpret output ('read the volume and bbox'), which implies usage, but gives no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance or prerequisites (e.g., an active assembly/document must be loaded).

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