min_clearance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses the return statuses, optional fields, units, and output structure, though it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect free.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the return-value detail is justified because no output schema exists. Each sentence earns its place by clarifying scope, units, or conditional field presence.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is nearly complete: it explains parameters, units, statuses, and returned fields. Minor gaps remain around read-only behavior and how object handles are obtained.

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 coverage is 0%, with only generic titles A and B. The description compensates by explaining that `a` and `b` are object handles, which is the key semantic missing from the schema, though it does not describe accepted handle syntax.

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 measurement operation on two solids and explicitly contrasts it with the sibling interference_check. An agent can distinguish this tool from the binary interference checker without opening either 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?

Names the relevant alternative (interference_check) and indicates this tool is richer for measured gaps. It lacks an explicit when-not statement, but the comparative framing gives clear selection context.

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