Compare Mesh Bodies

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing the computed output fields, units (cm), and the Fusion version requirement. No behavioral trait contradicts the annotations.

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, information-dense sentence front-loads the core operation, then states output units, a motivating example, and version compatibility without redundancy. Every clause earns its place.

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 low-complexity, read-only tool with two fully described parameters, the description supplies the missing output semantics (statistics and units) and a prerequisite, leaving no critical gap in the absence of an output schema.

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%: both parameters are already described as 'Name of the first mesh body' and 'Name of the reference mesh body.' The description only reinforces the reference-mesh role and adds no syntax, constraints, or format details to the parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Compare two mesh bodies') and specifies the exact output (deviation statistics: min/max/mean/RMS signed distance in cm). The example clearly differentiates this from generic measurement tools like measure_distance or get_physical_properties.

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 a clear use case ('validate an imported STL against a reference mesh') and a compatibility prerequisite ('Requires Fusion 2026+'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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