compare_designs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions the return type (differences with complexity assessment) but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or whether the operation is read-only. Since it is a comparison tool, being read-only is likely, but not stated.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Compare two designs...') and lists all key outputs. No wasted words; every part is meaningful.

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 complexity of comparing two designs with multiple difference categories, the description lists all expected outputs (layout, typography, etc.) and notes the complexity assessment. It lacks an example of the output format, but the list is comprehensive. Sibling tools are not explicitly excluded, but the purpose is clear enough.

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%, and the schema already describes each parameter and its properties. The description adds 'First design reference' and 'Second design reference' but provides no additional semantic value beyond the schema definitions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 compares two designs (videos or images) side by side and lists specific categories of differences (layout, typography, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_design (single design) or critique_design (single critique).

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 use when comparing two designs but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_design or analyze_layout. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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