production.retopology_compare_source

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety, so the description's added value is the behavioral profile of the measurement: it is sampled, reproducible, bidirectional, and explicitly not a full Hausdorff bound. That tells an agent how much to trust the numbers, which the annotations cannot.

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 tight sentences with the metric list front-loaded and the limitation appended. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the metric semantics are well covered. However, the undocumented required 'relationship' parameter and unknown 'options' shape leave a practical hole in an otherwise complete definition.

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%, so the description must explain the two parameters. It says nothing about 'relationship' (required string – is it a pair id, path, or name?) and nothing about the opaque 'options' object, leaving an agent unable to construct a valid call from the text.

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?

States a specific operation: bidirectional sampled deviation between HIGH and LOW meshes, with named metrics (mean/median/P95/P99/max) and units (world metres). This distinguishes it in practice from the silhouette-oriented sibling, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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 gives no condition for when to call this versus production.retopology_compare_silhouette, retopology_validate, or deformation_compare. The only constraint offered ('does not claim full Hausdorff equivalence') is a caveat on interpreting output rather than guidance on tool selection.

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