clearance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does disclose some behavioral context: units (cm), capsule sizes, and that 'worst_cm 0 means nothing touches'. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe the output format or any side effects. The description adds partial value over the schema.

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 brief and front-loads the core concept. It contains no filler sentences. However, the phrasing is somewhat disjointed and could be better structured, but it is efficient overall.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should be far more complete. It omits explanation of what the tool returns (output shape), when to use it, and details on the undocumented parameters. The brief hints about 'worst_cm' and contacts are insufficient for correct invocation.

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 only 50% (frame and ignore are described in the schema). The description mentions 'the rifle point in the frame', which loosely relates to the frame parameter, but provides no meaning for 'top' or 'parts', which are undocumented in both schema and description. The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 states a measurement ('How deep the rifle sits inside the arms') rather than a clear verb+resource. It implies the tool computes clearance but does not frame it as an action or distinguish it from siblings like distance. The mention of 'worst_cm' and 'deepest contacts by segment' gives some functional context.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The agent is left to infer the tool's role from the cryptic description. There is no indication of when this tool should be preferred over 'distance', 'reach', or other measurement siblings.

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