Compare two ECL result files within absolute and relative tolerances to verify simulation outputs match.
Compare two ECL result files within tolerances using compareECL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_a | Yes | ||
| case_b | Yes | ||
| abs_tol | No | ||
| rel_tol | No | ||
| keywords | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool compares using compareECL, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, whether it produces a report or exit code, what side effects might occur, or how the comparison outcome is represented.
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 sentence with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. It is appropriately short for a tool whose name already communicates the operation, though it sacrifices substantive detail.
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 five parameters, zero annotation coverage, and a related sibling tool, the description is not complete enough. It does not explain the meaning of tolerances, the role of keywords, what 'ECL result files' entails, or what output the user should expect. The existence of an output schema mitigates return-value ambiguity but does not fill these 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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It implies the two file arguments ('two ECL result files') but says nothing about abs_tol, rel_tol, keywords, or how they affect the comparison. This is a significant gap for a 5-parameter tool.
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 states a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('two ECL result files'), and adds the key constraint 'within tolerances'. It is clear and actionable, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool compare_summaries, which is a closely related comparison operation.
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 gives no guidance about when to use compare_ecl versus alternatives like compare_summaries or compare_to_observed. It neither states the intended context nor rules out other tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.