interference_checkCalculate overlap volumes between all part pairs in an assembly to identify interferences, sorted from largest to smallest. An empty result confirms no parts collide.
Pairwise interference: compute volume of intersection between every pair of parts. Returns [{a, b, interference_mm3}, ...] descending by volume. Empty list = no interference.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assembly | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already signal a safe, closed-world read operation. The description adds the full output contract: descending list of {a, b, interference_mm3} entries and the empty-list sentinel meaning no interference. This is substantive context beyond 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?
The description is four short lines that front-load the operation, then give the output shape, sort order, and empty-list meaning. Every sentence earns its place.
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 simple read-only analysis with one parameter, the description covers the operation and return semantics well, especially given there is no output schema. The main missing piece is clarification of the assembly parameter's value format, plus possible error or prerequisite conditions.
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?
The only parameter, 'assembly', has no schema-level description and the tool description never explains how to reference an assembly (name/path/ID) or what format is accepted. With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate for this gap but does not.
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 names a specific operation ('compute volume of intersection') over a precise scope ('every pair of parts'), and the phrase 'Pairwise interference' distinguishes it from nearby analysis tools like min_clearance or envelope_check. It is not a tautology of the title.
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 clear context for when the tool applies: detecting and quantifying pairwise overlaps between parts in an assembly. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.