physics_overlap_circle

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

The description makes the read-only selection behavior clear and notes the 2D collider scope. However, with no annotations, it omits details like whether touching colliders count, coordinate-space assumptions, or any side effects (likely none).

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?

One tightly worded, front-loaded sentence. No filler or restatement of the tool name; every word adds meaning.

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?

While the core behavior is clear, the description omits important context for correct use: layerMask semantics, coordinate space, whether touching colliders count, and what happens when nothing overlaps. With no annotations or output schema, an agent has limited guidance beyond the basic query shape.

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 descriptions are 0%, so the description must carry semantic weight. It conveys that center/radius define the circle, but gives no meaning or usage guidance for the optional layerMask parameter and does not explain units or how center coordinates are interpreted.

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 ('Return'), a specific geometric query ('2D colliders overlap a circle'), and the output ('entity IDs'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling raycast/pathfinding tools.

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 choose this tool over alternatives like physics_raycast_2d, navmesh_find_path, or scene queries. It neither lists use cases nor exclusions, so the agent gets no routing help.

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