swmm_compare

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states 'compare continuity error (%)' but does not explain what the comparison entails (e.g., subtraction, percentage difference), whether the files are read or modified, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 with no wasted words, but it lacks necessary details. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness. A longer description with parameter mapping and output info would be more useful.

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 no output schema and two required parameters, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., difference in continuity error) and clarify the role of each parameter. The current description does not provide enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly, especially when sibling tools exist but are not differentiated beyond basic purpose.

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 0%, so parameters have no descriptions. The tool description mentions 'two SWMM .rpt files' but does not map them to the parameters 'rpt' and 'rpt2'. The parameter names themselves are ambiguous (could be file paths or content). The example 'GUI vs CLI' does not clarify which parameter is which. This leaves the agent without enough information to correctly assign file paths.

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 specifies the verb 'Compare', the resource 'continuity error (%)', and the files 'SWMM .rpt files', with an example 'GUI vs CLI'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like swmm_continuity (one file) and swmm_peak (peaks) by focusing on comparison of two files.

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 usage by mentioning 'two SWMM .rpt files' and the example 'GUI vs CLI', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when comparing consistency) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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