compare_graphs

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: deterministic diffing, cap enforcement via limit and a 512 KiB budget, and exact totals with truncation reasons. This is especially valuable because there is no output schema to convey what the tool returns.

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 dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then packs in behavioral details about caps, totals, and truncation reasons without redundancy.

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 description covers the core behavior and output well, especially given no output schema. However, it leaves scan_limit unexplained and does not mention alternatives or prerequisites beyond 'indexed snapshots', so an agent may not fully understand all input semantics or when to prefer a sibling tool.

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 must compensate, but it does not explain scan_limit at all and only implicitly covers limit. base_project and target_project are inferable from 'Compare two indexed snapshots', and limit's role is hinted by 'capped by limit', but the parameter semantics remain under-specified for an agent.

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 names a specific operation ('Compare two indexed snapshots') and states what it returns: target-only additions and base-only removals of stable node/edge identities. This is clear and specific, though it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from sibling tools such as detect_changes.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: comparing two indexed snapshots to identify deterministic additions and removals. It does not state exclusions or point to alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough to guide selection.

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