scout_compare

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: non-zero CLI exits do not raise (inspect raw.stderr), and a ValueError is raised for local files on remote hosts. Minor edge cases like conflicting target arguments are not detailed, but the core transparency is strong.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, then usage constraints, a usage example, error-handling notes, an args list, and a returns spec. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids fluff.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and special edge cases, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the return format, error behavior, parameter meanings, and differentiates from sibling tools. The inclusion of a use case and a comparison target rule makes it self-contained.

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 0%, so the description compensates by listing all 8 arguments with meaningful explanations. It adds context beyond schema, e.g., 'to - Compare against this image reference, directory, or archive' with the local/remote caveat, and enumerates allowed values for only_severity and format. Some params like platform remain terse, but overall it provides needed semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Compare two image references and report the CVE delta.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling scout_cves by noting 'scout_cves scans a single image.' This makes tool selection unambiguous.

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 states usage constraints: 'Exactly one of to, to_env, or to_latest=True must be supplied' and suggests a concrete use case: 'Use it after a rebuild to check the new image against the old.' It also names the alternative scout_cves for single-image scans, providing clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

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