Detect interferences in the active SOLIDWORKS assembly, grouped by component pair with count, total volume, and max volume in mm³; optionally include coincident contacts.
Interferencias del ENSAMBLAJE activo agrupadas por pareja de componentes (numero, volumen total y maximo en mm3). Puede tardar: ~40 s con 22 componentes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coincidence | No | Contar contactos coincidentes como interferencia. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the performance profile (~40 s for 22 components) and the shape of the result grouping, which goes beyond the schema. However it never says whether the operation is read-only or mutates/annotates the model, nor that an open assembly document is required, leaving key behavioral traits undisclosed.
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?
Two dense sentences: the scoping/return information is front-loaded and the practical timing warning is appended. Nothing is redundant and every clause carries information.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly tells the agent what comes back (per-pair count, total and max volume in mm3) and how long it may take. The remaining gap is that it does not state the read-only nature or the required document state, minor for a single-parameter query 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'coincidence' parameter. The description does not mention it at all, adding no meaning beyond the structured field; baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb+resource: it reports interferences within the active assembly, grouped by component pair, with count, total and max volume in mm3. That is far more concrete than a tautology. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools (e.g. sw_check_machining), though no sibling is a direct competitor, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the reference to the 'active assembly' hints at a precondition, and the timing note helps the agent decide whether to wait, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative tool guidance. Minimum-viable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.