Compare settings

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

Annotations mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds an explicit guarantee that the original value is restored even on error. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotation, though it does not detail the return format of stats/warnings.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then a safety note. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or filler content.

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 and non-destructive guarantee, but omits what the collected stats/warnings look like and the role of 'extra'. Without an output schema, the agent lacks clarity on return values, making the description adequate but not fully complete.

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. It clarifies that 'values' are iteratively assigned to 'key', giving meaning to these params. However, the 'extra' parameter is completely unexplained, and the expected format of 'values' is not specified, leaving a significant gap.

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 that the tool iterates over values for a key, slices, collects stats/warnings, and restores the original. This specific verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_slice_status or get_slice_warnings, which focus on single aspects.

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?

Usage is clearly implied: use this tool to compare how different values of a setting affect the slicing outcome. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the action of iterating over values makes its purpose distinct from siblings like slice_and_wait or get_slice_warnings.

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