model_diff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable context: that the tool works on geometry (not feature trees) and that reshaped bodies are reported as removed+added. This extra behavioral detail helps the agent understand limitations beyond the annotation's safety flag.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds only essential clarifications. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 explains the tool's outputs and limitations well, but lacks details on parameter semantics and return format (no output schema). For a tool with two required parameters and no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial, but the description covers the core functionality adequately.

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 two parameters (path_a, path_b) have 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions 'Two B-rep revisions (STEP/BREP/IGES)' but does not explicitly describe the parameters' meaning, format, or constraints (e.g., local vs URL, file extension requirements). More parameter-level guidance is needed to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 computes a geometric diff of two B-rep revisions and lists specific outputs (volume, area, bbox deltas, per-body matching). It distinguishes itself from a feature tree diff and implicitly from sibling tools like model_inspect (which inspects a single model) by specifying the diffing functionality.

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 geometric comparison of B-rep files and clarifies it is not for feature tree diffs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like model_inspect or model_validate. No direct exclusions or alternative tool names are given, leaving some ambiguity.

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