sw_interference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the result includes overlap volume magnitudes and that touching contact is a separate, opt-out category — useful context. It does not describe the return shape (e.g., pairs of components with volumes, or whether an empty result is possible), leaving a gap despite the presence of no output 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The overlap-volume outcome and the optional touching behavior are both conveyed economically.

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 read-only, two-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the optional mode but does not tell the agent what comes back (component pairs, volume units, empty-result behavior). Enough to call it correctly, but not enough to interpret results confidently.

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%: 'doc' is documented in the schema itself, while 'treat_touching_as_interference' has no schema description. The description's phrase 'optionally touching ones' supplies the meaning of that otherwise undocumented boolean, compensating for the coverage gap. It is still implicit rather than stating the default or the exact effect.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: find overlapping components and report the overlap volume. That is clearly distinct from nearby siblings like sw_measure or sw_check_requirements, though the description never names those alternatives, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 parenthetical 'optionally touching ones' signals that touching contacts are excluded by default, which hints at how to use it. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over sw_measure or sw_check_requirements, nor any prerequisite or context about when interference checking is appropriate.

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