compare_capsules

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool compares and shows differences, but does not mention whether it is read-only, whether capsules must be loaded first, whether it modifies state, or what scope of differences is covered.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource. However, the brevity leaves out important usage and behavioral context.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema presumably covers return values, so not explaining them is acceptable. However, missing guidance on when to use this tool and what exactly is compared makes the definition incomplete for an agent operating in a large sibling toolset.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the two ID parameters. It only restates that they refer to two experiment capsules; it does not explain where the IDs come from, what format they should use, or what the difference is between the two parameters. The parameter names are readable, but the description adds 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 clearly states a specific action ('Compare') and a specific resource ('two experiment capsules'), and indicates the output concept ('show differences'). It is distinguishable from sibling capsule tools like create_capsule, list_capsules, load_capsule, and delete_capsule. However, it could be more precise about what kind of differences are shown (e.g., settings, contents, model data).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_capsules or load_capsule. It does not state any prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent choose this tool confidently.

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