compare_self

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, confirming it's a read operation. The description adds detail on input variants (codename or raw tokens) and explicit output fields, providing full transparency beyond 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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and structured logically: what it does, input options, return values, when to use. No unnecessary words.

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 the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is complete. It covers both input modes and clearly states what the user will get back, leaving no ambiguity.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds semantic context: text parameter includes example format ('ccusage JSON or "input output cacheCreate cacheRead"') and clarifies use case for users not on the board.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Compares an operator's metrics against board averages and power-user archetypes, returning a behavioral assessment.' It also lists the return fields and mentions the intent COMPARE_SELF, making it distinct from siblings like compare_operators.

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?

Explicit usage cues are provided: 'Use this when users ask "how do I measure up to other AI users?" or "am I a power user?" or "compare me to others"'. This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool.

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