Compare 2ools versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that source content is not returned and enumerates exactly what metrics are reported (lineage, review state, page additions/removals, byte sizes, SHA-256 per page). This gives a concrete behavioral picture without contradicting the safety annotations.

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 deliver the core action, scope, and output details with no filler. The first sentence is immediate about the tool's function, and the second sentence efficiently lists the reported dimensions.

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 read-only comparison tool with all parameters documented and safety covered by annotations, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what it reports. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit list of reported attributes.

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 three parameters have complete descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), including formats and intended roles ('Earlier or baseline version ID', 'Later or candidate version ID'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb 'Compare' with a clear resource 'two saved versions in one project' and explicitly excludes returning source, distinguishing it from export-like siblings such as prepare_version_export. This makes the tool's primary function unambiguous.

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?

It sets clear context by stating the comparison happens without returning source, which hints at when to use it versus export tools. It also lists the reported attributes (lineage, review state, page changes) that signal its use case. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria.

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