tokenpull_compare

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

The description adds critical context beyond the readOnlyHint: it promises parallel execution, returns 'delta % vs tokenpull as the baseline', computes cascade metrics for each source, and emphasizes it is 'Token-only, on-device'. The readOnlyHint aligns with the non-destructive read nature described, and the openWorldHint aligns with the fixed set of local sources. No contradiction.

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 two sentences with high information density, front-loaded with the core function and lists key features and usage. Every sentence earns its place, and it remains concise despite covering many aspects.

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 tool's complexity (multiple sources, baseline comparison, cascade computation), the description covers the purpose, the data sources, the key output (delta % and cascade), and usage context. An output schema exists for return values, so the description doesn't need detailed output specs. The description is fully self-contained for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

The schema description covers 100% of the parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about platform-specific source usage, but the description does not explain the parameter format or behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Pull token usage from ALL four local sources in parallel' and specifies the exact sources and computation of delta percentages and cascade metrics. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'tokenpull' by emphasizing the comparative and validating nature.

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 explicitly says 'Useful for validating your numbers before submitting, or understanding discrepancies between tools' and provides guidance on which platforms use which sources ('Claude only for token-dash; codex and others use tokenpull + ccusage + tokscale'). This is clear when-to-use context and differentiates from alternative tools.

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