compare_directories

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

The description discloses the output categories (files only in first/second, different, identical) but does not mention that traversal is recursive or that maxDepth controls depth. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden; missing recursion details lowers the score.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the primary action and the second elaborating on the output. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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 has 5 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description covers the basic behavior and output categories but could mention recursive traversal and the effect of filtering parameters. The schema covers parameter details, so the description is mostly complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 directories and outputs four categories of file differences. It distinguishes itself from siblings like diff_snapshots (compares snapshots) and list_directory (just lists contents).

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 implies usage for comparing directories but does not specify when to use this versus alternative tools like diff_snapshots or find_potential_duplicates. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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