Compare two LLM provider items to identify configuration differences and align AI gateway management settings.
Compare two manage multiple llm providers items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| left | Yes | Left | |
| right | Yes | Right |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it discloses nothing about side effects, authorization needs, output format, or potential failure modes. 'Compare' suggests a read-only operation, but the description never states this explicitly.
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 short and front-loaded with the verb, but the sentence is malformed and confusing. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness; the brevity does not aid comprehension.
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 compare operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least specify what fields or characteristics are compared and what the result looks like. It provides none of that, leaving the tool effectively unusable without external documentation.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the parameter descriptions are only the unhelpful labels 'Left' and 'Right'. The tool description adds nothing about what values should be passed or how they are formatted, so it does not improve on the schema's minimal information.
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 names a verb ('Compare') and two items, but the phrase 'manage multiple llm providers items' is grammatically broken and does not clearly identify what kind of objects are being compared. It does little more than restate the tool name 'compare' and leaves the resource type ambiguous even with sibling names available.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus aigw_list, aigw_inspect, or aigw_status. No conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned, so an agent has no basis for selecting this tool over its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.