ボックス範囲の物理クエリ

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating no side effects. Description adds the behavioral constraint that results are meaningful only during Playing mode, and specifies the return format {entities:[{entityId,name}], count}. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words: first states operation, second gives critical precondition, third provides return format and differentiation from sibling. Front-loaded and compact.

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 3 simple parameters, no output schema, but description mentions return format. Annotations provide readOnly. The description covers purpose, usage conditions, and differentiation. No gaps.

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 100% with all parameters described (center, halfExtents, maxResults). Description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it explains the overall operation using the parameters.

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 explicitly states: '列挙する' (enumerate) physics bodies overlapping an AABB, and distinguishes from sibling dx12_query_entities by noting it uses actual collider shapes rather than Transform.position. It also mentions the tool is only meaningful during Playing.

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?

Description includes '★Playing 中のみ意味のある結果' (only meaningful during Playing) and contrasts with dx12_query_entities, guiding the agent to choose this tool for physics-based overlap and the other for position-based simple box.

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