compare_to_legacy

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool reads a legacy markdown, does not modify files, and reports matched/missing/changed obligations with severity and working-cash delta. This provides sufficient transparency into the tool's behavior and non-destructive nature.

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 paragraphs, front-loading the purpose and then detailing behavior and outputs. It is concise without unnecessary words, though the structuring could be slightly tighter by grouping related info.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main input and a key output option. It reports the output structure (matched/missing/extra/changed, severity, cash delta) but does not explain all parameters or the output format in detail, leaving some gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'legacy_cashflow_md_path' as the source file and 'render_markdown' for a Markdown summary. However, three parameters (as_of_date, base_year, db_path) are left undescribed, leaving gaps in meaning.

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 performs a diff between a legacy cash-flow.md and a new daily digest. It uses specific verbs like 'diff', 'reports', and describes what it reads and does not do, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform other finance operations.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: supply a fresh legacy markdown, and clarifies that it never runs the legacy ritual or writes any legacy file. It does not explicitly list when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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