art.asset.compare

Does 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. 'Compare' suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it produces no side effects, whether it requires any particular permissions, or what happens if the versions are identical. It doesn't describe the output format (e.g., a diff, a similarity score, a list of changes). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, but the verb 'compare' does give some hint of non-mutating behavior.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary verb and resource. There's no unnecessary fluff or repetition of the tool name. It earns a high score for being efficient, though it could arguably include a bit more context within that sentence.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is relatively minimal. It tells you what it does, but doesn't explain what 'compare' means operationally—does it return a diff, a list of changed fields, a boolean? With no output schema and no annotations, an agent might be unsure what to expect. The description is functional but incomplete for a tool that could have nuanced behavior.

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 all three parameters are described in the schema: asset_id, version_a, version_b. The description doesn't add additional context beyond what the schema provides, but given full coverage, the baseline is 3. There's no extra info like how the IDs are formatted or how version numbers should be ordered, but the schema handles the core semantics.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Compare two versions of an asset.' It conveys the specific action of comparing versions, which is distinguishable from siblings like art.asset.get, art.asset.history, or art.asset.inspect_version. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings in the description text itself, so it doesn't quite reach a 5.

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 tool name and description imply a usage context: when you need to compare two versions of an asset. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like art.asset.history (which might list all versions), art.asset.inspect_version (which might show a single version), or art.asset.current. The description is minimal and leaves the when-to-use distinction to inference.

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