fusion_interference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns volumes and checks interference, but does not detail behavior for edge cases like missing bodies or coincident faces. The description is consistent with 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 extremely concise: two sentences that convey purpose, input, output, and use case. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the key information: what it does, what to pass, and what is returned. Minor omission is the handling of multiple body pairs, but overall sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'bodies' can be a 'list of indices/names', adding meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not elaborate on 'include_coincident_faces' or the format of the returned volumes.

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 interference between 2+ bodies' and specifies the output 'overlapping volumes (mm³)'. It uniquely identifies this tool among siblings as the only interference-checking tool.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Use to validate clearances/fits in an assembly.' While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, the context is sufficient for a specialized tool.

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