compare_api

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds only the entity types and patch scope, which are also evident from the schema. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as output format or error handling, but this is not a contradiction.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the tool's primary purpose and scope.

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 comparison tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a basic overview but lacks important context such as what the comparison result looks like or how it differs from the sibling diff_versions. The absence of output schema and the presence of ambiguous siblings leave the description incomplete for an agent deciding among multiple similar tools.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents each parameter. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond enumerating the supported kinds, which the schema already captures via the 'kind' enum. It does not explain parameter interactions or formats beyond what the schema provides.

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 an exact API, event, enum, structure, widget, or system between two retail patches. It uses a specific verb ('compare') and names the resource type and version scope. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tool diff_versions, so it misses the top score.

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 use when comparing an exact entity between versions, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling diff_versions or other lookup tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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