tokenpull_compare

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: confirms read-only nature (consistent with readOnlyHint), notes parallel execution, and states 'Token-only, on-device'. No contradictions with 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 front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, uses four sentences without redundancy, and includes necessary context. It could be slightly more concise but remains efficient.

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, the description covers purpose, parameter guidance, usage context, and behavioral notes. It doesn't explain cascade metrics in detail, but that is likely covered in the output schema. Overall complete for a tool with rich structured data.

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 single parameter 'platform' has full schema coverage with enum and description. The description adds platform-specific behavior (e.g., 'token-dash and App only available for claude'), providing meaning beyond the schema.

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 it pulls token usage from four local sources in parallel and returns them side-by-side with delta percentages and cascade metrics. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like 'tokenpull' (single source) and 'tokscale_breakdown' (different focus).

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?

The description explains when to use ('validating your numbers before submitting, or understanding discrepancies between tools') and provides platform-specific guidance (e.g., 'Claude only for token-dash; codex and others use tokenpull + ccusage + tokscale'). It lacks explicit exclusion statements for alternatives but offers clear context.

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