Compare a Recreation to its Reference Plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it measures coverage and reports missing editable elements, which clarifies the operation's output. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no unnecessary words, front-loaded with the action verb. It is concise and structurally clear, maximizing information density.

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 core purpose is clear, and the presence of an output schema covers return-value expectations. However, the description does not explain what 'structural coverage' means, what input parameters are required, or how they relate to the operation, leaving a significant completeness gap.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no property descriptions. The description does not mention or explain any of the three parameters (planId, fileName, revision), failing to compensate for the missing schema details. The user is left without guidance on how to supply these inputs.

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 ('Measure') and clearly identifies the resource ('structural coverage against the approved absolute scene graph') and outcome ('report missing editable elements'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_reference_plan (retrieval) and validate_drawio (format validation).

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 title and description imply the use case (comparing a recreation to its reference plan), but the description itself provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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