compare

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: rendering both datasets with identical camera, colormap, and scalar range, and offering two comparison modes. However, it omits any discussion of side effects, required permissions, or resource considerations.

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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence, contextual elaboration, and bulleted mode list. It is appropriately concise without superfluous content, though it could be slightly more compact.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality but lacks details on what the tool returns (e.g., file path, success status) and does not fully explain parameter interactions or constraints. This leaves some gaps for an agent.

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 100%, so the description adds limited value beyond the schema. It mentions modes and their meanings but does not elaborate on other parameters like 'quality' or 'purpose' beyond their 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 identifies the tool's purpose: comparing two simulation results side-by-side or as a difference map. It specifies use cases like design comparison, mesh convergence studies, and solver validation, and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on comparison rather than single visualization or analysis.

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 context (design comparison, convergence studies, solver validation) and describes two modes, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or provide alternatives. Given the many sibling tools, clearer guidance on when to choose 'compare' over 'analyze_data' or 'animate' would improve the score.

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