compare_with_mesh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavior: what offset_mm does and that the output is per-section pairs plus worst differences, compensating somewhat for the missing output schema. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, nor any permission/state requirements.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then adds interpretation and return-value notes in two short paragraphs. Every sentence carries information; only slight density/crypticness in the interpretation sentence costs it a point.

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 5-parameter comparison tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully covers the return shape and offset behavior, but leaves axis, heights_mm, frame, and path undefined and omits side-effect/permission context. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0% and there are 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies one parameter (offset_mm as [dx, dy, dz] moving the mesh into the part's frame); path, axis, heights_mm, and frame semantics remain entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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: comparing the current part's cross-sections against a reference mesh's at matching heights. This clearly distinguishes it from construction siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the related slice_mesh tool. An agent can tell what it does without opening the 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?

The description explains how to interpret results (different area = misread feature; equal areas = shifted frame) but never says when this tool should be chosen over alternatives or what preconditions apply (e.g., mesh must exist, part must be loaded). No when-to-use or when-not guidance is given.

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