compare-pages

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

Adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: mentions diff truncation at 50000 bytes with trailing marker, describes return payload for includeDiff=false (change flag, metadata, size delta). No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=true consistent with non-destructive operation).

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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose, every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Efficiently conveys all necessary information in a compact form.

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?

No output schema, but description adequately explains return values: compact diff, change-detection response components, truncation behavior. Covers error cases and optional parameter effects. Comprehensive for a 7-parameter 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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds critical context: explains that title parameters use latest revision, that text-vs-text is rejected, and behavior of includeDiff. While not detailing each parameter individually, it adds meaningful usage semantics.

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?

Clearly states it returns changes between two wiki page versions as a compact text diff. Distinguishes from sibling get-page by specifying that only changes are returned, not full text. Describes multiple input methods and explicitly rejects text-vs-text.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: when to use (compare versions), when not (text-vs-text rejected), and alternative get-page for full text. Also explains includeDiff=false for cheap change-detection response and mentions error conditions for missing titles/revisions.

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