check_assembly_clearances

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

The description discloses that it returns a list of clearance check results and that it checks each interface against requirements. It implicitly suggests a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that it does not modify the assembly or require specific permissions. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and is only moderately transparent.

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 relatively concise, with a short summary, a line about return type, and structured parameter descriptions. The 'Args:' section is helpful given no schema descriptions, though it adds some verbosity. Overall efficient and well-organized.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and high-level return. It would benefit from specifying the structure of each clearance result (e.g., fields like 'interface_id', 'clearance', 'required', 'pass'), but the current description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output.

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%, but the description includes a clear docstring for both parameters: assembly_json is 'JSON string of the current assembly state' and default_clearance_mm is 'default clearance gap in mm' with a default value. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's type information.

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 clearly states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'clearances between all mating parts in an assembly'. It distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like 'validate_assembly' by focusing specifically on clearances, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites or when not to use it (e.g., the assembly must be valid JSON). There is no mention of context like 'use for clearance verification, not general assembly validation'.

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