entities_near

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool uses a crossing window and filters within AutoCAD, and that results are ordered by distance. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, mention permissions, or clarify what 'filtered within AutoCAD' entails, leaving gaps.

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 at three sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding relevant context about interference detection and AutoCAD filtering. There is no fluff, though it could be slightly more structured with parameter mentions.

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 presence of an output schema, return values are covered, but the description does not explain the 7 parameters, usage prerequisites, or how the crossing window filtering behaves in practice. It is adequate for a simple query but incomplete for the tool's actual complexity.

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 should explain parameter meanings. It mentions 'point' and 'area' but does not map these to x, y, radius, or explain the optional type, block, layer, or limit parameters. The added value is minimal beyond 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?

The description clearly states that the tool returns entities near a point, ordered by distance, and specifies its role as an interference detection engine for columns, beams, passes, and slabs. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_entities or locate_in_polygons.

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 provides context by stating it is the interference detection engine, implying use cases like detecting overlapping structural elements. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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