compare_view

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

Annotations already mark it readOnly/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it enumerates return values (iou_registered, both sizes, per-band table with verdicts, inner_detail edge_agreement), explains the sub-0.3 IoU hint, the empty-`names` behavior listing a huge floor/backdrop in `excluded`, and that `out` writes the composite image. That is rich behavioral disclosure the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Nearly every sentence carries non-redundant information, but it is delivered as one dense run-on paragraph with no headers or bullets, forcing the agent to parse view-by-view orientation details mixed with return-value notes. Appropriately sized for a 12-parameter tool, but poorly structured for front-loaded scanning.

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 complex 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the interaction model, scale semantics, view conventions, output payload, and side effects of `out`, which is close to sufficient. Gaps remain on size, bands, and threshold semantics.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must do the work, and it explains view (with per-view axis orientation), flip/rotate ordering, height_m vs width_m semantics, names, colors, and out in real detail. It leaves size, bands, and threshold unexplained, so it compensates for most but not all of the 12 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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: comparing a model against a reference image in a single flat orthographic view, and calls out that it produces the main build-from-references metric. It also separates itself from neighbors, explicitly routing perspective photos to match_camera and overlay_reference, so an agent can distinguish it from fit_to_reference/overlay_reference without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear alternative route ('For a perspective photo use match_camera and overlay_reference') and conditions for the scale parameters (give height_m/width_m to catch a size mismatch, omit both to compare shape-only). It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement or a direct comparison to the closer sibling fit_to_reference.

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