compare-pages

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral details: supported side types (revision ID, title, supplied wikitext), the rejection of text-vs-text, truncation at 50000 bytes with a trailing marker, and error behavior for missing titles/revisions. This is beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured with the main purpose first, followed by detailed usage. It is slightly long but every sentence adds necessary information. No redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description is thorough: it covers parameter semantics, truncation, change-detection mode, and error handling. It does not describe the exact return format, but that is acceptable due to the diff output being standard. The annotations and schema coverage further complete the picture.

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%, but the description adds critical semantics: it explains that each side can be a revision ID, page title, or supplied wikitext, and that both sides cannot be supplied wikitext. It also explains the effect of includeDiff=false, which is not fully captured in the schema description.

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 verb ('returns'), the resource ('changes between two versions of a wiki page'), and the output ('compact text diff'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get-page by explaining that this tool provides a diff, not the full 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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (to get changes) and when to use an alternative ('For the full text of both sides, fetch with get-page instead'). Also describes the includeDiff=false option for cheap change-detection, and clarifies that text-vs-text is rejected and that nonexistent titles/revisions cause errors.

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