Check Interference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds the specific behavioral context of detecting collisions/interference, which is valuable beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't describe what constitutes a 'collision' in detail, how results are returned, or any performance considerations.

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 - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and contains zero wasted language. This is an excellent example of efficient documentation.

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's moderate complexity (collision detection with 2 parameters), good annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. The lack of output schema means the description should ideally explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean result, collision details, interference volume), but it doesn't. For a read-only analysis tool, this represents a significant omission in completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without parameter information in the description.

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 with a specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('collisions between components/bodies'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'measure_distance' or 'get_physical_properties' that might involve spatial analysis, leaving room for potential confusion about when to choose this specific collision detection 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for measurement, analysis, and geometry operations, there's no indication of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons to tools like 'measure_distance' for proximity checks or 'get_physical_properties' for spatial properties. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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