compare-pages

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds important behavioral details: truncation at 50000 bytes, rejection of text-vs-text, and fallback behavior for missing titles or revisions. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with main purpose, then systematically covers inputs, limitations, and options. Slightly verbose with multiple clauses, but each sentence contributes meaningful information. Could be more compact without losing content.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers all essential aspects: input forms, error cases, truncation behavior, cheap detection mode, and cross-reference to sibling tool. Leaves no significant gap for an AI to misuse the 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%, but description adds value by explaining how the three input options per side work and that text-vs-text is invalid. It also clarifies the role of includeDiff and wiki parameters beyond schema descriptions.

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 'Returns the changes between two versions of a wiki page as a compact text diff', specifying the verb (returns), resource (changes between page versions), and format (compact text diff). It distinguishes from sibling 'get-page' by noting it only returns changes, not 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 mentions acceptable inputs (revision ID, page title, supplied wikitext) and rejects text-vs-text. Advises using 'get-page' for full text. Covers error conditions (non-existent title/revision) and the cheap change-detection option with includeDiff=false.

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