task_compare

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It states it fetches full replay data and produces a diff, but does not mention side effects (e.g., read-only), permissions, or limitations. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses bullet points to list diff fields. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or fluff.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (reported in context signals), the description adequately covers the tool's function. It mentions the diff fields and use cases, though could add prerequisites (e.g., tasks must have executions).

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (task_id_1, task_id_2). The description adds context about 'task executions' but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. 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?

The description clearly states the tool compares two task executions side by side, generates a diff with specific metrics (step count, checkpoint count, duration, authors), and distinguishes it from siblings like task_replay or task_execution_trace.

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 description explicitly suggests when to use: comparing a failed run against a successful one or benchmarking agent assignments. No explicit exclusion or alternative tools mentioned, but the provided use cases offer clear guidance.

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