measure_overlap

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by stating the tool returns overlap status, volume, and dimensions. However, it omits details about side effects (e.g., selection changes), required object properties (e.g., must be mesh objects), and the exact calculation method.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence stating purpose and a second listing returns. Every word earns its place, with the key action front-loaded. No unnecessary fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (2 string params, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and outputs fairly well. However, it lacks clarity on parameter input format and does not explain what 'overlap' entails (e.g., partial vs full), which would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter titles ('Object A', 'Object B'). It does not clarify whether these are object names, IDs, or how to refer to them, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 tool checks bounding box overlap between two objects and lists the return values. It specifies a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('objects' bounding boxes'), distinguishing it from sibling measurement tools like measure_distance or measure_dimensions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as measure_distance or measure_alignment. It does not specify prerequisites, expected object types, or any context like whether objects must be selected or what input format is accepted.

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