Comparar corridas

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read operation, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does add the comparison basis ('por huella') and the result categories, which helps the agent interpret output, but it says nothing about missing/nonexistent run IDs or comparison edge cases.

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?

Two sentences: the first defines what is compared and what comes back, the second gives the motivating use case. Purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries information.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficient: it conveys the return categories and the reason to call it. Minor residual gaps are how findings are matched and what happens when a run ID is invalid or omitted.

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%, and the schema itself documents base_run_id as the prior run and head_run_id as the later run with a default of the most recent. The description's 'por huella' adds the notion of the comparison key but no extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Compara dos corridas') and enumerates the comparison output categories (hallazgos nuevos, resueltos y persistentes). It is clearly distinct from siblings like runs_list or findings_query, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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?

It states a concrete use case: verifying that a patch fixed the problem without introducing others, which tells the agent the context in which to reach for it. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use conditions or the alternative tool for plain run listing or finding queries.

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