Compares actual and expected outputs, optionally ignoring case and whitespace, to verify code test results and identify mismatches.
比较两个输出
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actual | Yes | 实际输出 | |
| expected | Yes | 预期输出 | |
| ignore_case | No | 是否忽略大小写 | |
| ignore_whitespace | No | 是否忽略空白字符 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about behavior: not whether the comparison is exact, not what the result looks like (boolean? diff text?), and not how failures are surfaced. The only behavioral hints come from the schema defaults (ignore_whitespace=true), not the description.
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 single short phrase with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. There is no front-loaded detail beyond a restatement of the tool name.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place an agent can learn what the comparison returns and how results should be interpreted, and it supplies none of that. For a 4-parameter tool whose entire value is its comparison result, this is a significant gap.
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 100%, with each of the four parameters documented in Chinese (actual, expected, ignore_case, ignore_whitespace). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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 phrase "比较两个输出" gives a verb (compare) and a resource (two outputs), so the general purpose is understandable. However, it does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as compile_and_run or read_test_case, and it never specifies what 'compare' means (exact equality, boolean result, diff report).
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing output captured from compile_and_run first), and no exclusions. The agent must infer its place in the workflow entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.