compare

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

The annotations set readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. The description implies the tool observes state without modifying it, but does not explicitly state that there are no side effects or any other behavioral traits. With annotations already providing the safety profile, the description adds no new transparency beyond operational details.

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 brief introduction followed by line-separated explanations for each kind. It front-loads the unified purpose. While it is somewhat verbose (occasionally repeating 'a and b' and 'b is required'), each sentence contributes value. The structure makes scanning for the appropriate kind easy.

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 (four kinds, six parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main usage scenarios comprehensively. It explains parameters, required inputs for most kinds, and output format for snapshot. It does not detail return structure for shape/fit/align, but the output schema likely covers that. No major gaps are apparent.

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 carries the full burden. It explains the role of parameters 'a', 'b', 'kind', 'axis', 'mode', and 'format' in context of each kind. However, there is a slight inconsistency: the description states 'b is required' for shape, fit, and align, but the schema lists 'b' as optional (default empty). Despite this, the description adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, earning a 4.

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 it is a 'Unified comparison tool' and elaborates four distinct kinds (shape, fit, align, snapshot) with specific resources (named shapes, session state). Each kind has a concise purpose statement, such as 'compares two named shapes from show() by volume/bbox/topology'. The description effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on comparison operations.

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 provides clear context for when to use each kind (e.g., shape for geometry comparison, fit for spatial relationships). However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or compare it to sibling tools like 'measure' or 'analyze_printability'. No explicit guidance on alternatives is given, which limits its helpfulness for agent decision-making.

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