Compare two Minecraft resource packs to identify added, removed, and changed files, including per-file size details for each difference.
Compare two resource packs with detailed per-file information including file sizes for added/removed/changed assets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| newPackPath | Yes | Path to the new resource pack directory | |
| oldPackPath | Yes | Path to the old resource pack directory |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only comparison and lists what categories of results appear, but says nothing about side effects, performance cost on large packs, or exact return structure (there is no output schema).
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?
A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and immediately qualifying the output detail level. Nothing to trim.
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?
Adequate for a simple two-path read tool, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should carry more: it never states that output is read-only/report-style, nor how it differs from the sibling compare_rpacks, leaving an agent to guess.
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 100%, with both paths already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions nothing about the two path parameters, adding no meaning beyond the schema.
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 and resource ('Compare two resource packs') plus the output shape ('detailed per-file information including file sizes for added/removed/changed assets'). It partially distinguishes itself from sibling compare_rpacks via 'detailed per-file', but never names the sibling or clarifies the difference explicitly.
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 on when to use this versus compare_rpacks or the other analysis tools. The agent must infer from the word 'detailed' that this is the heavier-weight diff, with nothing stating prerequisites (e.g., packs must be directories) or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.