Compare slice variants

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

The description extensively discloses behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: variants are applied over the original config and reset between runs, the config is restored exactly, and slice validity is left false. It also explains that all deltas and percentages are precomputed and should be relayed as-is, which is valuable context for the agent.

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 every sentence carries relevant information: purpose, variant format, reset/restore behavior, output contents, recommendation logic, and performance caveats. It is well-structured and free of filler, earning a top score for a tool of this complexity.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, this description covers inputs, outputs, side effects, and performance guidance. It explains the returned headline/table_markdown/variants structure and the meaning of recommended and recommended_is_dominant, making the tool fully self-contained for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well by defining the variants structure, the meaning of changes={}, baseline default behavior, and the effect of detail=True. The timeout parameter is not mentioned, but it is a conventional integer with a default; the other three parameters receive clear semantic explanation.

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+resource: 'Slice the current plate under several named variants and compare the cost of each.' This clearly states the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings like slice, compare_settings, or slice_and_wait.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool (comparing costs across variants) and gives explicit guidance on when to set detail=True and how to present results with many variants. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just 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.