compare_files

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

Since no annotations are available, the description carries the full burden of disclosing safety and behavior. It implies a read-only operation but does not state whether files are modified, what happens if paths are invalid, or what the difference output format is.

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, succinct sentence that gets straight to the point. It contains no filler and is highly scannable.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the tool's return value and operational details. It only covers the basic purpose, leaving significant gaps about output format, error handling, and behavioral guarantees.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema fully documents the inputs. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'compare' targeting 'two files' and indicates the output ('show differences'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file or write_file.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or context about file types. It simply states what it does without explaining when it's the right choice.

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