aa_compare

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, and the description adds no further behavioral context such as prerequisites, output characteristics, or handling of the compared artifacts. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes little beyond the purpose statement.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is efficient, though it is close to under-specified for a tool with four parameters.

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 tool with four parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to explain what the inputs represent or what a comparison produces. Annotations cover the safety profile, but key invocation details are left to inference.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the four parameters, but it only implies that before and after are the two compared items and that kind selects inventory versus report. It says nothing about the optional 'out' parameter or whether before/after are paths, IDs, or raw content.

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 specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('two inventories or two reports'), so the tool's basic function is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as aa_inventory or aa_validate, which keeps it short of 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?

It gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives; it only names the operation. An agent must infer that this is the correct tool whenever two inventories or reports need comparison.

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