compare

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the what (extract, trace, compare) but not side effects, permissions, or output behavior. Critical details like whether it modifies files or requires network access are missing.

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 highly concise: two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose. The first sentence states the core function, the second broadens scope. No unnecessary words.

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?

With no output schema and 5 parameters, the description should provide more context about the result format or behavior. It omits any hint of what the comparison outputs (e.g., mismatches report), leaving a significant gap for a complex 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 100% with clear descriptions for all 5 parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 provides a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('contract'), and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating it performs three actions (extract, trace, compare) in one tool. It covers multiple languages and protocols, making its scope clear.

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 does not explain when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools like 'extract_schemas' or 'trace_usage'. There is no guidance on prerequisites, when to avoid, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to guess.

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