measure_distance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds the result vocabulary (none/touch/intersect/contained), which aids interpretation, but says nothing about units, tolerance, or cost of the computation.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the possible outcomes. Every clause carries information; there is no filler.

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 two-parameter read-only measurement with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose and result interpretation adequately. It falls short only on prerequisites and units of the returned distance.

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 100% and both parameters are documented as 'Body id or unique name', so the heavy lifting is done by the schema. The description adds no constraint or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 measurement resource (minimum distance between two bodies) and the collision classification it produces, which no sibling tool offers. It is clear but never explicitly distinguishes itself from related siblings like describe_body or list_bodies.

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?

Usage is only implied by the subject matter — an agent can infer you call it to check clearance between two bodies. There are no explicit when/when-not conditions, no mention of alternatives, and no stated prerequisites such as both bodies needing to be present in the active design.

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