mcquest_compare_phase

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it explicitly opens with 'READ ONLY', preventing an agent from misclassifying this as a mutating operation. It also discloses what the function returns, i.e., differences categorized under specific terminology. It does not detail input validation, error behaviors, or performance implications, but for a read-only comparison this is the key behavioral fact.

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 three short sentences, with the most critical safety cue ('READ ONLY') front-loaded. Every sentence contributes distinct information: safety, core action, output terminology, and use context. There is no filler or irrelevant detail.

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 covers the core behavior, return terminology, and a clear use case, and the presence of an output schema removes the need to detail return structure. It is missing a bit of guidance on issues like path meaning or the meaning of max_results, but for an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool, the provided context is sufficient.

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 must compensate for the two required parameters. 'Between two phases' indicates from_phase and to_phase semantics, but it omits path and max_results entirely. The description does not clarify possible phase value formats, how max_results applies, or when to customize the default path.

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 uses a clear verb-resource combination ('Compare documentation evidence between two phases') and defines a distinctive result set of terminology ('EXISTING, RESOLVED, NEW, POTENTIAL REGRESSION, UNKNOWN'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like mcquest_phase_context or mcquest_find_evidence, which do not signal comparison across phases.

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 the intended use: 'Use to understand what changed between phases.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, so it misses the full '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.