Compare two Civilization VI entries of the same kind, such as units or techs, to view their stats side by side for quick evaluation.
Side-by-side stats for two entries of the same kind, e.g. compare("unit", "Swordsman", "Man-At-Arms").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | ||
| b | Yes | ||
| kind | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only comparison but does not explicitly state that there are no side effects or permissions required, leaving some ambiguity.
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 with an illustrative example, delivering the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.
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 is sufficient for basic usage given the low complexity and absence of an output schema, though it does not mention return format or edge cases.
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 schema provides no descriptions, but the example clarifies that 'kind' identifies the category and 'a' and 'b' are the two entries to compare, adding meaningful context beyond raw parameter names.
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's function: comparing two entries 'side-by-side' and provides a concrete example with parameters, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like rules_query or rules_lookup.
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 explains when to use the tool (for two entries of the same kind) and gives a representative example, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.