compare_visual_runs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Return', which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose whether the tool actually computes a comparison, whether it requires pre-existing artifacts, how it handles missing directories, or what 'confined' means operationally.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately short, though its brevity contributes to the missing detail penalized in other dimensions.

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 two required path-like parameters, the description does not explain how to choose the left and right directories, when to prefer this tool over sibling visual-report tools, or what a VisualProbe report represents. The output schema may cover return shape, but the invocation and selection context is incomplete.

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 provides no descriptions for left_artifact_dir or right_artifact_dir (0% coverage), and the description merely restates that they are two confined artifact directories. It does not explain path format, how to obtain such directories, or what makes them 'confined'. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds very little 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('VisualProbe reports') and scopes it to 'two confined artifact directories'. The name 'compare_visual_runs' and the left/right parameter pair reinforce its purpose, but the description itself doesn't explicitly say it performs a comparison or how that differs from simply reading two reports separately.

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 siblings like read_visual_report or read_visual_artifact. The description only implies it is for retrieving reports from two directories, but states no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives.

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