compare_scripts

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, and 'Neither script is executed' is a valuable safety-relevant disclosure that also implies a non-destructive analysis operation. It additionally previews the report categories the tool produces. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or content-size constraints, but the core behavioral profile is disclosed.

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 with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the second sentence delivers an independent safety disclosure. Every clause earns its place.

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 output schema covers return structure, and the description covers purpose and the key safety behavior, leaving a coherent calling picture. The remaining gaps — parameter semantics and explicit sibling routing — are minor for a well-named tool with self-evident required parameters.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate, but it never explains language, original_content, new_content, or decode_embedded_content beyond the faint echo of 'newly decoded artifacts.' The two content string names are self-explanatory, but language auto-detection semantics and decode_embedded_content's on/off tradeoff are left undocumented.

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'), resource ('two versions of a script'), and enumerates distinct report categories (added/removed behaviors, changed indicators, newly decoded artifacts, risk score delta). The 'Neither script is executed' clause and diff-focused output clearly differentiate it from analyze_script, decode_blob, and extract_indicators.

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 usage context is implied — an agent holding two versions of a script would naturally reach for a comparison tool — and the non-execution clause hints at safe analysis use. However, the description names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or exclusions against siblings.

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