compare_models

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the parallel execution and model count range, which is helpful, but omits details like potential costs, timeout behavior, or result aggregation, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and purpose, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description provides only the basic purpose. It does not clarify what the user should expect as output or how to interpret consensus/divergence, which is a notable gap for a comparison tool.

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 75%, so most parameters are already described. The description's mention of '2-4 modelos' reinforces the models bound but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema's minItems/maxItems.

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 action (sends the same question), the resource (2-4 Antigravity models in parallel), and the purpose (second opinion, consensus or divergence). This distinguishes it from siblings like run_antigravity or consult_model, which likely handle single-model interactions.

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 when to use the tool by mentioning 'second opinion, consenso ou divergencia', signaling it is for scenarios needing multiple perspectives. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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