Generate a Markdown comparison report for multiple slicing runs to analyze differences in G-code, settings, or outcomes. Provides a structured overview for decision-making.
Write a Markdown comparison report for multiple runs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | comparison | |
| run_ids | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions writing a Markdown report but omits side effects (e.g., file writing vs. returning content), output format details, and any prerequisites. This is a significant gap for a tool likely to have side effects.
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, concise sentence that states the core purpose without extraneous detail. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves many critical questions unanswered: what the report contains, how it is delivered, what side effects occur, and what prerequisites exist. The description is far too sparse for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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%, and the description does not mention the 'name' or 'run_ids' parameters. The schema defines them, but the description adds no context about their meaning or how they affect the report, leaving the agent without essential semantic information.
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 clearly states the action ('Write') and the resource ('Markdown comparison report for multiple runs'). It distinguishes itself from u1_export_run_report (singular) and other compare tools focused on slices/orientations, though it doesn't elaborate on what 'comparison' entails.
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 alternatives like u1_export_run_report or u1_compare_*. It only states the action without context, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.