topos_compare_code

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive hints. Description adds 'parses both snippets in memory, never writes or scores,' which goes beyond annotations but is not extremely rich.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, behavior+usage, return value. All front-loaded, no wasted 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?

For a tool with 3 simple and well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and return value completely.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats schema descriptions ('Baseline code.' and 'Proposed/target code.') without adding extra syntax or format details.

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?

States verb+resource clearly: 'Compute the AST distance between two source-code strings.' Distinguishes from siblings by noting that assess tools already fold it in, and this tool provides raw numbers for clone detection or refactor impact.

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?

Explicitly says 'call it directly only for the raw number' and names alternatives (topos_assess_*), giving clear context on when to use vs. not use this tool.

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