shape_compare

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

Despite no annotations, the description implies a read-only analytical operation by mentioning computed metrics. It does not claim any side effects or destructive actions, but could be improved by explicitly stating no state changes occur.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and metrics, followed by usage context. No extraneous content; every sentence adds value.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and hints at parameter meaning, making it complete for its complexity.

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 0%, but the description adds context that parameters are 'named shapes from show()'. This hints at input format but does not fully compensate for missing schema descriptions, leaving ambiguity about exact naming conventions.

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 compares two named shapes and lists specific metrics (volume delta, bbox delta, topology delta, center offset). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'clearance' or 'interference' by focusing on full geometry comparison.

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 use cases: verifying a design against a reference or quantifying modification changes. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context suggests no direct alternatives exist among siblings.

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