get_interferences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific criterion (overlap or proximity threshold) but does not disclose additional behavior such as scene scoping, return format details, or whether all models are considered. It does not contradict 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and condition. There is zero waste; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify return format. It mentions 'pairs of model ids', which is helpful, but it does not specify the scope (e.g., whether it considers only models in the given scene, or all loaded models) or edge cases (empty scene, missing collision_offset_mm). The description is adequate for a simple read-only tool but leaves some ambiguity.

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 50%: scene_id is fully described in the schema, while collision_offset_mm has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining that this parameter defines the proximity threshold, giving it semantic meaning beyond its name. This adds value for the undocumented parameter.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('pairs of model ids') with a precise condition (overlap or closer than collision_offset_mm). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like detect_thin_walls or detect_cups, which focus on feature detection rather than interference listing.

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 usage for interference checking but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. The context of listing overlapping/proximal model pairs is implicit but not framed against sibling detection tools.

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