check_assembly_interference

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the use of bounding box detection (suggesting approximation) and states that it returns overlap information. However, it does not disclose potential limitations, side effects (e.g., read-only nature), or permission requirements. The disclosure is adequate but not thorough.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the action and core functionality. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return type ('which parts overlap and by how much') but lacks details on the format or structure of the output. For a simple analysis tool, the description is moderately complete but could benefit from specifying output details or clarifying that it does not modify the assembly.

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 input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description 'Check for overlapping/interfering parts...' does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides; it remains at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Check for overlapping/interfering parts in an assembly using bounding box detection.' It identifies the specific verb ('check'), resource ('assembly interference'), and method ('bounding box detection'). Among sibling tools, there is no other interference-checking tool, so it is well-differentiated.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisite conditions or situations where this tool is not appropriate. It lacks explicit context for usage decisions.

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