Diff Findings

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explicitly stating 'Requires no authentication', 'reads local inputs only', 'does not make network calls', 'does not modify local files', and 'has no external rate limits'. This fully aligns with the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations and provides strong reassurances about side effects and dependencies.

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 dense but well-organized: it leads with purpose, lists specific outputs, gives a usage directive, and then provides behavioral guarantees. No redundant or filler content is present, and every sentence adds useful information.

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 fully covers what the tool returns (including the exact conditions for the regression flag), what each input represents (current state vs baseline), and the behavioral context (local, no side effects). Combined with the provided output schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions, and the tool description further clarifies accepted input forms: 'Scan result object, CheckYourself report object, object with findings/remediation_backlog, or a plain list of finding objects'. This adds meaningful detail beyond the raw schema and resolves ambiguity about input shapes.

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 specific verb 'Compare' and the resource 'two inline findings artifacts', and enumerates the detailed outputs (added, resolved, unchanged, status/severity transitions, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan or backlog, making its function immediately identifiable.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to gate changes against a baseline', giving a concrete scenario for when to select this tool. It does not name alternative tools or explain when not to use it, but the use case is still clear and actionable.

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