compare_asset_versions

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description is free to add behavioral context it does: it discloses the return shape per root (ref-count/size/mtime/optional match-count) and that roots rank differently when a pattern is supplied. The ranking behavior and the stub/complete discrimination are genuinely useful beyond the 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one dense sentence, followed by a structured Returns block. The Returns inline signature is somewhat long but earns its place given there is no output schema; little waste overall.

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, the Returns block adequately carries the return-value burden, and annotations cover safety. The agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret results, though the precise semantics of most_complete_root/likely_stub_root tie-breaking could be spelled out.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters including the pattern alias and the rel_path extension handling. The description restates the pattern-ranking effect but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (compare), the exact resource (the same asset across N Content roots), and explicitly grounds itself against the sibling primitive scan_uasset_refs. An agent can tell what this does versus the per-asset scan without opening the schema.

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?

Names the use case clearly ('tell an incomplete stub copy from the complete one at a glance') and references the underlying scan primitive, giving solid context for when to reach for this tool. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions or name a distinct alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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