compare_documents

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

The description states the tool creates a tracked-changes output file, but annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which indicates the tool should not modify any state. Creating a file is a state modification, constituting a contradiction. The description does not clarify this inconsistency or disclose other behavioral traits like permissions or error handling.

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 concise but packed with detail; it front-loads the purpose then segments into mode explanations and format-specific notes. A minor improvement would be to move granular stats to parameter descriptions, but overall it is 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?

The description explains input modes and output behavior, but lacks information on the tool's return value (e.g., success message/filename). With no output schema, this is a gap. It also does not clarify handling of conflicting parameters (e.g., providing both original/revised and file_path).

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 100% with parameter descriptions, but the description adds significant value: it explains the two comparison modes, file-type behaviors (e.g., DOCX atom statistics, ODF inline granularity), and default author/engine values. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 purpose: comparing two documents and producing a tracked-changes output. It explains two modes (standalone and session edit) and supported formats (DOCX, ODF), distinguishing it from siblings like 'extract_revisions' or 'accept_changes'.

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 implies when to use the tool (for comparing documents) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings. It contrasts modes but lacks exclusionary guidance, such as 'use extract_revisions for existing tracked changes'.

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