Compare runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds that it is a side-by-side multi-run view with specific dimensions (resources, exit state, elapsed, efficiency), but says nothing about ordering, scale limits, or failure handling for missing jobs.

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?

A single tight sentence with the comparison dimensions in a parenthetical. Nothing wasted, though the parenthetical carries more weight than the main clause.

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 simple read-only comparison tool with no output schema, the definition is adequate but thin: an agent learns what is compared but not how jobs that are still running, missing, or beyond the max are handled.

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 50%: jobIds is inline-documented via pattern and bounds while profile has its own description. The description's '2+' maps to minItems=2 but adds no detail about the id format, max of 10, or profile preconditions, so it does not compensate for the gap.

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) and resource (runs/jobs) with the enumeration of compared attributes, which is more than a bare restatement. It distinguishes itself reasonably from siblings like ris_explain_job or ris_job_history, though it doesn't name those alternatives explicitly.

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 '2+' phrasing implies the minimum of two jobs required by the schema, but there is no guidance on when to choose comparison over ris_explain_job or single-run analysis, nor any exclusions. Usage must be inferred.

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