match-reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It mentions rendering the current frame and returning outputs, but does not disclose whether rendering has side effects (e.g., cache, project modification), auth needs, or rate limits. The description is moderately transparent but lacks full disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and output, followed by concise parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no superfluous words.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main workflow and parameter usage. It lacks details on error handling (invalid path, missing comp) but is sufficient for typical use.

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 100%, baseline is 3. The main description adds context for the 'referencePath' (on-disk image path) and 'comp' (omit for active comp), but the schema already provides clear parameter descriptions. The description does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 a composition against a reference image, rendering the current frame and returning a side-by-side comparison and a difference map. This specific verb-resource mapping distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'see-frame' or 'inspect-comp'.

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 explains when to use the tool (to see deviations from a reference) and how to specify the reference path and composition. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, which would merit a 5.

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