ras_results_compare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the alignment behavior ('exact' or 'interpolated'), the metrics computed, and the special xsec ranking mode with counts of increased/decreased/unchanged. It does not mention output format or error handling, but for a read-only comparison tool, the behavioral detail is substantial.

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 dense but efficient, packing all key information into two sentences. The first sentence lists metrics and alignment; the second details the special mode. It could be slightly more readable but no sentence is wasted.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main usage modes and metrics clearly. It also references sibling tool conventions for parameters. It lacks return-value structure and edge-case behavior, but for the tool's complexity, it is largely complete.

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 44%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'location' parameter (optional for xsec to trigger ranking) and the 'variable' parameter implicitly through delta volume. However, many parameters like label_a, label_b, and mesh remain unexplained, and the description points to a sibling tool for some parameter semantics rather than defining them.

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 runs (baseline vs scenario) and lists specific metrics (delta peak, timing shift, RMSE, NSE, delta volume). It also describes a distinct ranking mode for xsec without location, which differentiates it from sibling tools like ras_results_timeseries.

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 implicitly establishes when to use this tool—when comparing two HDF files—and references ras_results_timeseries for parameter conventions, which helps an agent understand the usage context. It does not explicitly state exclusions or when not to use, but the comparison purpose is clear.

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