peer_compare

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions 'dual-CLI comparison' but does not explain the internal behavior, such as whether it modifies state, runs external processes, or returns results. The focus is on input preparation rather than tool effects.

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 a few short sentences with clear front-loading of critical upfront instructions. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or verbose phrases.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks detail on return values, completion behavior, or what happens after invocation. It explains preparation well but omits post-call context, leaving the agent unsure of the tool's overall operation.

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 60%, and the description adds some context, e.g., for 'files' it says 'use correct file extensions...pass base64 or data-URI content.' However, it largely reiterates schema descriptions for parameters like message and repo_path, not adding substantial new meaning.

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 states it is a 'low-level dual-CLI comparison' and instructs to attach files and diffs. It clearly indicates a comparison function, distinguishing it from sibling tools like peer_ask or peer_debate, but does not fully articulate the specific verb-resource relationship.

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 provides explicit instructions: 'Before calling: read relevant source files and attach full contents via files. Pass complete diffs/logs — never prose summaries.' It also advises to 'prefer phase tools for routing,' guiding when not to use this tool. This gives clear usage context and alternatives.

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