compare_to

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the behavioral process: snapshotting, loading source, restoring, and returning stats with deltas. It also explains the 'without losing it' safety trait. The only missing detail is the effect on the application state after use.

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 core action, and every sentence adds value. No extraneous information.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior, process, and output format. It misses details about the 'keys' parameter, but overall it is sufficient for a build 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?

The description adds meaning for 'source' by specifying it can be a code, link, or XML, which is absent in the schema. However, 'keys' is not explained, leaving its purpose unclear. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but lacks full parameter clarity.

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 tool's purpose: 'Compare the active build against another build' and details the process. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the comparison action and preservation of the current build, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 usage context by noting 'without losing it,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like evaluate_build or export_build. No when-not guidance or alternative mentions.

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