Compare an original payload to an optimized version. Returns size reduction %, removed field paths, and depth change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| original | Yes | Original (before optimization) payload | |
| optimized | Yes | Optimized (after pruning) payload |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It lists the return values (size reduction %, removed field paths, depth change), which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects or modifies inputs, though the name suggests a read-only comparison.
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: two sentences that immediately state the purpose and key outputs. No filler or redundant information.
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 simple comparison tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It specifies the key return data, which compensates for the lack 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already described clearly. The description adds little beyond the schema, but since the schema covers the parameters, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 function with a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('original payload to an optimized version'), and the focus on comparison distinguishes it from sibling tools like field_prune_suggest and payload_analyze.
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 implies use after optimization by referencing 'original' and 'optimized' payloads, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. No reference to sibling tools is made.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect: cost estimation, comparison, pruning suggestions, and structural analysis. No two tools overlap in purpose, making misselection unlikely.
Names mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (compare_payloads, payload_analyze) with slight inconsistencies like 'bandwidth_cost_calc' (abbreviation) and 'field_prune_suggest' (two verbs). Overall predictable and readable.
Four tools is a well-scoped set for a payload auditing utility, covering analysis, comparison, cost, and suggestions without excess or deficiency.
The set covers analysis, comparison, and cost estimation, but lacks a tool to apply pruning or generate an optimized payload. However, comparison implies an external optimized version, so the gap is minor.