align_check

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains the meaning of delta signs for flush and clearance modes, and lists the return JSON fields. This provides good transparency, though it could mention what happens if objects are not found.

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 two sentences: the first states the overall purpose, the second details axis and mode options. Every word adds value; 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?

Given no annotations but presence of an output schema (described in text), the description covers inputs, outputs, and mode interpretations. It is slightly lacking on edge cases (e.g., missing objects) but is otherwise sufficient for a check tool.

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 description must compensate. It explains axis values (X, Y, Z) and mode values (flush, center, clearance) with their interpretations. However, it does not explain object_a/object_b beyond 'named objects', leaving some ambiguity.

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). This is a specific verb+resource pair and distinguishes from siblings like 'clearance' or 'interference'.

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 implies usage (checking alignment) and explains modes, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like 'clearance' or 'measure', nor does it provide when-not conditions.

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