Min Clearance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe and deterministic. The description adds significant behavioral detail: it defines the three possible statuses, the meaning of clearance_mm (0.0 when touching/interfering), the conditional presence of overlap_volume_mm3, and the omission of point fields for interference. This gives a complete picture of the output behavior 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 well-structured with a clear initial summary, followed by a formatted list of return fields. It front-loads the core purpose and units, then details the output. Some verbose wording could be trimmed, but every sentence adds value, and the layout aids comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple output statuses and conditional fields), the description is thorough in explaining return values, units, and the meaning of statuses. It lacks an explicit output schema, but the description covers the essential behavioral aspects. It does not mention edge cases like invalid handles or numerical precision, but these are less critical for a read-only query.

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 parameters are just strings with no schema documentation. The description explains that `a` and `b` are 'object handles' and that all lengths are in mm, which is essential context for invoking the tool correctly. This compensates well for the lack of schema detail, though it could further specify the expected format of the handles (e.g., IDs vs paths).

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 clearly states a specific verb ('measured gap') and resource ('between two solids'), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling `interference_check` by noting it is 'richer than the binary interference_check'. This distinguishes it from similar geometric query 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?

The description implies when to use it (when a richer measure than binary interference is needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond indirectly referencing `interference_check`. It provides clear context for typical use cases but lacks formal exclusions.

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