check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the output visualization (grey/blue/red, IoU and edge-error bands 'placed exactly, no rescaling') and the checks performed, which conveys non-destructive intent implicitly. It does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies anything or describe the return format, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single dense paragraph but packs a lot of information efficiently. It leads with the core purpose, then details the checks in a structured list-like format using semicolons. No filler words; every clause adds value. It is concise for the content it conveys.

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 tool is fairly complex with multiple verification aspects, yet the description omits parameter semantics and output structure. It explains what is checked but not how to call it or interpret the full result. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without schema descriptions (which are absent).

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It never mentions 'name' (likely the model/plan identifier) or 'resolution' (default 160). The agent receives no guidance on what values to supply or how they affect the check. This is a critical gap.

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: 'Check the model against its plan' and enumerates the specific checks (silhouette, IoU, edge-error, landmarks, sections). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'compare' or 'measure' through the explicit plan-checking scope. It lacks a direct contrast to sibling tools but is specific enough.

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?

It provides explicit timing guidance: 'Run it after every stage.' This tells the agent when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it lacks exclusions. Still, the directive is clear and actionable.

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