Compares a measured SOLIDWORKS CAD volume against an independent expected value in mm³ to verify the model volume within a configurable relative tolerance.
Compare measured CAD volume with an independent expected value in mm3.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expected_mm3 | Yes | ||
| relative_tolerance | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description sets the intent of the operation (comparison) but fails to disclose the resulting behavioral trait, such as whether it returns a boolean success/fail, a deviation percentage, or a status code. Given the absence of an output schema, this ambiguity is a significant gap.
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 an efficient single sentence that packs maximum information about the tool's function and scope without any superfluous wording or 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?
While the purpose is clear, the definition is not completely robust. The lack of output schema means the description needs to be richer regarding the execution result (e.g., what the comparison yields), preventing a higher score.
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?
Since the schema description coverage is 0%, the description is tasked with providing all contextual meaning. It successfully defines the units (mm3) and the nature of the comparison, providing useful semantic context for the two input 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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') and clearly defines the resource being acted upon (measured CAD volume) relative to an expected value. This distinguishes it clearly from related CAD modification and visualization siblings.
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?
It provides a very clear context for use: when a measured volume must be verified against an independent standard. While it lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements, the nature of the comparison itself defines the primary use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.