diff

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

Describes output (added/removed/changed sites, cost changes) and return type (JSON string). But no mention of side effects, prerequisites (e.g., valid git repo), or error behavior. Annotations absent so description carries burden.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then details on output and args. No redundancy or verbosity.

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?

Adequate for a tool with 2 params and output schema. Covers purpose, arguments, and return. Lacks error conditions or prerequisites but sufficient for typical use.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage. Description adds meaning: explains base_ref as source ref and head_ref as target with default HEAD. Adds value beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states 'Compare LLM costs between two git refs', specifying verb and resource. Differentiates from sibling 'scan' by its focused scope.

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?

Describes what the tool shows (added, removed, changed sites, cost impact), implying usage for cost comparison. Lacks explicit when-not or alternative guidance but is clear enough.

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