check_interference

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

With no annotations provided, the description fails entirely to disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool returns a boolean, highlights interference, modifies the document, or requires specific permissions. The agent has no clue about side effects or results.

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 sentence that repeats the tool name without adding information. It does not 'earn its place' because it contributes nothing beyond the name itself. Conciseness should be informative brevity, not merely brevity.

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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should compensate. However, it provides no information about return values, prerequisites, or the meaning of 'interference'. The description is completely inadequate for guiding an agent.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions 'First body name' and 'Second body name', which are clear. The description adds no extra meaning, so it meets the baseline expectation but does not improve upon it.

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 'FreeCAD tool: check_interference' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying any verb or resource. It does not explain what 'check_interference' means, leaving the agent uncertain whether it checks for collisions, clearances, or something else.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like measure_distance or measure_angle. The description offers no context about typical use cases or when not to use this tool.

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