align_check

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

Given no annotations, the description effectively discloses behavioral traits: it details the return JSON structure, explains sign conventions for delta (positive/negative), and describes each mode's calculation. Lacks side-effect disclosure but none expected.

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 concise, with a single compound sentence followed by a compact list of mode explanations. All sentences are relevant, though the mode list could be slightly more structured.

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?

While the description includes return format and mode details, it lacks prerequisites (e.g., objects must be loaded), error conditions, and clear distinction from sibling tools like 'clearance'. The output schema is mentioned but not fully specified.

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 0%, so description compensates by explaining axis and mode options. However, 'object_a' and 'object_b' lack explanation beyond being named objects. The return field list adds some value but param semantics are partially covered.

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 checks alignment between two named objects along an axis, with explicit modes (flush, center, clearance) and return format. It distinguishes from siblings like 'clearance' and 'interference' by focusing on alignment measurement.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'clearance' or 'interference'. Does not mention prerequisites or when to choose each mode beyond the description of what they compute.

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