compare_outputsCompare paired source and target evaluation results deterministically to validate migration accuracy before code changes.
Compare one paired source/target evaluation result deterministically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_result | Yes | ||
| target_result | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'deterministically' which is a behavioral trait, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or what the result structure is. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety profile.
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, front-loaded sentence, which is concise and direct. However, it is under-specified, lacking necessary details about inputs and behavior. It is not verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, making it borderline adequate.
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 presence of an output schema means return values are covered, but the description omits critical context: when to use this tool, what the parameters mean, and any behavioral notes. Without annotations or parameter descriptions, an agent would struggle to call this correctly. It is incomplete for a two-parameter tool with no safety annotations.
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%, meaning the parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only hints that the two parameters form a 'paired source/target' relationship, which provides minimal meaning. It does not explain what constitutes a source or target result or how they should be structured. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
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 states a specific action ('compare') and a specific resource ('one paired source/target evaluation result'). This is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like compare_models, which likely compare models rather than evaluation results. However, it does not elaborate on what 'compare' entails or what the output looks like, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or provide any context for selection. An agent would have to infer that it is for comparing a pair of evaluation results, but no explicit usage guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.