Compare one exact package projection with every lane in one evidence-bound supplier capability declaration. Returns explicit match, conflict, or unknown checks; it never scores or selects a supplier and grants no contact, quote, purchase, or fabrication authority.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| import_observation | No | ||
| package_projection | Yes | ||
| capability_declaration | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states the return type (match, conflict, unknown checks) and explicitly denies any scoring, selection, or authority grants. This clearly sets expectations about side effects. The schema description reinforces the deterministic nature.
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 concise, using only two sentences to convey the core function and non-actions. The main action is stated first, followed by the output and exclusions. There is no unnecessary 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?
The description covers the main behavior and non-behaviors, but leaves some domain-specific terms like 'lane' and 'exact package projection' undefined. It also doesn't explain the optional import_observation parameter or provide context on how this fits into the broader supplier workflow. However, the core comparison logic is clear enough for a domain expert.
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 description names two of the three parameters (package_projection and capability_declaration) but doesn't describe their structure or required fields. The third parameter, import_observation, is not mentioned at all. Since no per-property descriptions exist in the schema, this is a significant gap.
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's purpose: comparing a package projection against a capability declaration and returning match/conflict/unknown checks. It also clarifies what it doesn't do (no scoring or selection), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools. The verb 'compare' is specific and the object and scope are defined.
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 minimal usage guidance. It implies the user must have a package projection and capability declaration, but doesn't explicitly say when to choose this tool over siblings like get_supply_options or request_provider_estimate. The negative clause about not scoring or selecting offers some hint, but no direct instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
