compare_env_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key safety behavior ('Reports redact values and never echo secrets') and a scope constraint ('Local .env files only'). However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, how it handles errors, or what the output format is beyond being a 'report'. The redaction guarantee is valuable, but the description could be more complete about side effects and output.

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 no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Compare .env.example vs .env for missing and extra keys; list empty required keys'), then adds the constraint and safety guarantee. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more detail about the tool's return value and behavior. It says 'Reports redact values' but does not specify the structure of the report (e.g., sections for missing, extra, empty keys) or how results are presented. It also omits error-handling behavior. While the description covers the core function and safety, it leaves ambiguity about the exact output an agent would need to interpret.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (envPath, examplePath, includeCommentedExample) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states; it only reinforces overall tool behavior (e.g., 'list empty required keys') without enriching the understanding of any individual parameter.

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 function: compare two env files for missing and extra keys, and list empty required keys. It uses a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('.env.example vs .env'), and the mention of 'list empty required keys' differentiates it from sibling tools like detect_empty_required, which likely focuses solely on empty keys, and redact_env_report, which likely produces a redacted report.

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 provides a constraint ('Local .env files only') but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling tools (detect_empty_required, redact_env_report). There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when...' or mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool's purpose.

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