compare_meshes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the surface distance is approximate, computed by sampling points, and reports units in mm. It does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or describe the exact return shape, but the algorithmic detail is strong.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the core verb and includes useful metric details without fluff. Every phrase adds necessary context.

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?

For a read-only comparison tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description captures inputs, method, and reported quantities. It could be slightly improved by explicitly stating the expected return structure or clarifying whether both inputs must be STL paths, but it is largely complete.

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 compensate. It successfully maps 'original_path' to the original mesh and 'candidate_path' to the reconstructed model, and 'sample_count' is implied by 'sampling points'. However, it does not explicitly describe each parameter or the sample_count's effect.

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 a specific action ('Compare a reconstructed model... against the original mesh') plus the exact metrics computed (volume/bounding-box deltas, mean/max surface distance in mm). It distinguishes itself from single-mesh tools like 'mesh_summary' by focusing on pairwise comparison.

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 establishes a clear use case: comparing a reconstructed/exported STL against an original mesh. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended scenario is unmistakable from the wording.

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