envelope_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it defines that bounds are evaluated in the world/assembly frame, that the result is a violations list of {part, axis, got, allowed}, and that an empty list means full compliance. It does not state whether the check is read-only, what happens on parts with no envelope entry, or tolerance/strictness behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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: the purpose is front-loaded, then the input contract, then the return contract. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what it asserts and what an empty result means) is stated up front.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover both semantics and return shape, which it largely does by documenting the violations record fields and the empty-list convention. Remaining gaps are the meaning/format of the 'assembly' argument and edge-case behavior (parts absent from envelopes, boundary-touching), which are minor for a pure check tool.

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 must compensate, and it does for the hard parameter: 'envelopes maps a part's link name (or label) to {min:[x,y,z], max:[x,y,z]} in the assembly frame' fully explains the nested object's key and value shape. The 'assembly' parameter is only obliquely covered by the phrase 'in the assembly frame,' leaving its form (document name vs. handle) unclarified.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'assert each named part's world bounding box stays inside its declared envelope,' with the 'Keep-out gate' framing that separates it from measurement tools like bounding_box or overlap tools like interference_check. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5, but an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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' framing implies this belongs in a verification/validation flow, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it versus bounding_box, interference_check, or min_clearance, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the assembly must be built/solved first) are stated. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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