Compare Reports

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the output categories (Fixed, New, Unchanged, and findings not rechecked), which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, read-only behavior, or any potential state changes. For a comparison tool, this is not critical, but the lack of explicit safety or side-effect disclosure prevents a higher score.

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 purpose and then the key output behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. This is an appropriate size for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple input schema (two required strings), an existing output schema, and the tool's read-only nature implied by comparison, the description covers the essential purpose, parameters, and return categories. It could add a note on prerequisites or limitations, but it is largely complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 does so by explaining that the two parameters are file paths to current.json and previous.json, giving concrete meaning to the otherwise generic string type. This is helpful, though it could specify path format or usage constraints. Still, it clearly adds value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Compare'), a resource ('two audit_project JSON reports'), and a distinguishing mechanism ('by fingerprint'). This clearly differentiates the tool from the sibling audit/test tools (full_qa, test_interactions, audit_project, etc.) by focusing on comparison rather than execution or testing.

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 the use case: when an agent has two audit_project report files and needs to see differences. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions. The sibling names suggest distinct purposes, but no routing guidance is given.

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