interface_align_check

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses gate semantics and the return shape (misaligned pairs with gap_mm, empty when aligned), but does not state that it is read-only, whether it mutates assembly state, what permissions it needs, or whether a failed gate blocks downstream steps – important for a 'Gate' tool.

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?

Front-loads the gate identity, then the workflow context, then the parameters and return contract – a sensible order. Some phrasing is chattier than needed ('the do the OTHER interfaces line up? check'), but every sentence contributes information about params or return values.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return contract (misaligned pairs with gap_mm, empty on success) and the parameter encoding, which is most of what an agent needs. It still leaves the assembly argument and the tool's mutation/permission profile unstated.

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: it documents the pairs item shape {child, child_iface, parent, parent_iface}, clarifies that child/parent are link names in the assembly, and explains tol_mm as the coincidence tolerance. Only the assembly parameter is left unexplained, hence a 4 not a 5.

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 (verify coincide in world space) on a specific resource (declared interface pairs), and explicitly scopes itself against the primary mate: it is 'the do the OTHER interfaces line up? check for multi-interface mates.' An agent can distinguish it from interference_check or envelope_check from the text alone.

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?

Gives clear sequencing context ('After the primary mate seats a part, this confirms its secondary interfaces'), which tells the agent when in the workflow to call it. It does not name a competing sibling or state when-not to use it, so it stops 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.