get_collision_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that it can include the whole subtree, and the verb 'Report' implies a non-mutating read operation. However, it does not specify behavior for missing nodes, performance impact, or what the returned information looks like, leaving room for surprises.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and main subject. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose, with no redundancy or filler. It earns the highest score for conciseness.

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?

The tool reports multiple complex types of collision information, yet the description is brief and lacks detail on return format, prerequisites, or how the subtree behavior works. Without an output schema or annotations, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and results.

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 the description must compensate. It adds context for 'include_children' via 'optionally its whole subtree' but does not clarify node_path format or default behavior. The word 'optionally' conflicts slightly with the schema default of true, and no parameter-specific guidance is given.

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 uses a specific verb 'Report' and clearly enumerates the covered aspects (physics layers, body simulation properties, collision shapes, polygons, raycasts) and scope (node with optional subtree). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_physics_layers or setup_collision, making it easy to identify the tool's purpose.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like get_physics_layers (which might focus on layers alone) or setup_collision. The intended use case is implied but not articulated.

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