Interface Align Check

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying that it returns misaligned pairs with gap_mm values and returns an empty list when all pairs coincide within tol_mm. No contradiction with 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, starting with 'Gate:' to orient the agent. Each clause adds relevant information—purpose, context, parameter structure, and return behavior. The informal style is slightly unpolished but does not waste words.

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 read-only gate tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (misaligned pairs with gap_mm) and tolerance semantics, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. Missing details like explicit assembly parameter documentation are minor and do not impede use.

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. It does explain the structure of 'pairs' as [{child, child_iface, parent, parent_iface}] and clarifies child/parent as link names, and references tol_mm in the return condition. However, the 'assembly' parameter is only explained by its name, and the field types or units are not fully 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?

The description states a specific verb 'verify' and resource 'declared interface pairs coincide in world space', and explicitly positions this as the 'do the OTHER interfaces line up?' check for multi-interface mates. This clearly distinguishes it from a primary mate operation and other gate 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?

It gives a clear temporal context: 'After the primary mate seats a part, this confirms its secondary interfaces'. This tells an agent when to use the tool, but it does not name alternative tools or state explicit exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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