scan_compare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions seal verification but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what happens if seals are invalid, what the output looks like, or whether there are side effects. Behavioral transparency is minimal.

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 eight-word sentence with no filler. The main action is front-loaded and the precondition follows naturally, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

For a tool with two nested object parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine what the comparison returns, how to construct the current and proposed objects, what seal verification entails, or how this tool differs from scan_analyze_coverage in practical use.

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 0% and the parameters are bare object types. The description adds meaning by mapping 'current' and 'proposed' to the two sealed scan plans and implying both seals must be verified. However, it does not explain the internal structure of these objects or how the comparison is performed.

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 uses a specific verb, 'compare', with a clear resource, 'two sealed scan plans', and adds a precondition, 'after verifying both seals'. This distinguishes it from siblings like scan_plan (creating plans) and scan_analyze_coverage (analyzing coverage), though it does not explicitly name them.

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 precondition 'after verifying both seals' provides some guidance on when the tool should be invoked, and the name implies a comparison use case. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, and sibling alternatives are not mentioned.

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