compare-draft-active

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating this is a comparison operation that 'shows' changes, strongly implying a non-mutating preview rather than an actual provisioning action. It also discloses exactly what categories of changes are reported (new, modified, deleted), though it does not discuss output format, limits, or side effects.

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?

Two focused sentences with no filler. The action and purpose are front-loaded, and the output detail is compressed into a single clear list. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's low complexity (one optional enum parameter, no required inputs, no nested objects), the description is largely complete for selection and invocation. It explains what the tool does, why you would use it, and what kinds of results to expect. The absence of an output schema or more explicit return-format details is a minor gap, not a blocking one.

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?

The schema already documents the single parameter fully with an enum, a default, and a description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond listing resources conceptually; the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 begins with a clear, specific action: 'Compare draft vs active policy' and names the resource (policy) plus the purpose ('to see what would change on provisioning'). It also enumerates the output categories (rulesets, rules, IP lists, services), making the tool's function distinct from siblings like provision-policy or get-rulesets.

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 phrase 'to see what would change on provisioning' implies this is a pre-check tool used before applying a draft, which provides some usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives or exclusions, so the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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