Envelope Check

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description states the coordinate frame (assembly frame), defines the envelope mapping format, and specifies the exact return shape including the empty-list success convention. It adds substantial behavioral context and does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, envelope schema, and return semantics. There is no filler or repeated annotation info; every sentence adds necessary operational detail.

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 validation tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, coordinate semantics, output structure, and success/failure convention. It stops short of edge cases such as missing envelopes or invalid assembly references, but nothing essential to a basic correct call is missing.

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 0%, and the description takes on the burden by fully specifying 'envelopes' as a map of link name/label to min/max coordinates. 'assembly' is only indirectly described as the assembly frame, not as an identifier/path, so one of the two required parameters remains under-specified.

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?

Opens with 'Keep-out gate' and a specific verb ('assert') plus the exact resource: each named part's world bounding box vs declared envelope. This clearly differentiates it from sibling validation tools like interference_check or check_shape.

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 'Keep-out gate' label and assembly-frame context make the usage scenario clear, and the pass/fail return format reinforces that it is a pre-flight validation check. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is enough to distinguish envelope compliance from interference/shape checks.

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