find_similar_prints

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does not mention side effects (read-only nature), error conditions, or what the return value looks like. It only lists input parameters without explaining expected outcomes or limitations.

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 relatively concise with a clear two-part structure: a general summary and a parameter list. It avoids unnecessary verbosity while providing essential details, though the parameter explanations could be more streamlined.

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?

The description is incomplete in terms of overall context. It does not specify the output format, the nature of results (e.g., a list of matching model IDs), or any edge cases. Since there is no output schema provided, this missing information is a significant gap for users to understand the tool's full behavior.

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?

The description elaborates on each parameter, clarifying the roles of surface_area_mm2, volume_mm3, complexity_score, and importantly explains the distinction between geometric_signature and geometric_signature_v2, noting that using the older signature may lead to incorrect matches. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's basic type listings.

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 tool's purpose: to find similar models in the print DNA knowledge base, using geometric and physical characteristics. This distinguishes it from other find-related tools by specifying the 'print DNA' context.

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 implies usage for locating models with similar geometry but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide conditions like 'use when you need to identify parts with comparable shape'. It lacks clear when-not guidance.

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