compare_views

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the result layout and a hard limit (max 6 pairs, matching order), but says nothing about accepted input formats, permissions, failure modes, or what happens if pairs are mismatched.

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?

Three short, front-loaded paragraphs: output description first, then input-pairing rules, then per-parameter notes. No filler, though the trailing parameter glosses read like notes rather than prose.

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 and no annotations, so the description must do everything; it covers the result structure and pairing constraint well, but leaves input format (paths vs IDs vs base64), method options, and error behavior to inference from sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: labels = view names, method = object-finding method (as in silhouette), references/renders = ordered pairs of the same view. The 'auto' default of method is not explained, which is the main gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Сравнить сразу несколько ракурсов') plus the exact output shape (one row per view: reference, model, difference, % match). The word 'сразу несколько' implicitly distinguishes it from the single-view 'compare' sibling, though it never names that contrast 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 gives usage context (references/renders must be pairs of the same view in matching order, up to 6 pairs) and defers semantics to siblings ('как в compare', 'как в silhouette'), but never states when to choose this over compare or compare_parts, nor any exclusion.

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