file_compare

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

With no annotations, the description fully describes behavior: it reports size comparison, first N differences with offsets and values, percentage of identical bytes, and summary. No destructive actions are implied. The description is transparent and accurate.

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 long, front-loaded with the main purpose ('Binary diff between two files'). Every sentence adds value, with no waste.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains the return values in sufficient detail (size comparison, differences, offsets, values, percentage, summary). For a comparison tool with only two parameters, this is complete enough for an agent to understand usage.

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 100% with descriptions like 'First file path' and 'Second file path'. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 binary diff between two files, comparing byte-by-byte. It specifies the outputs (size comparison, differences, offsets, values, percentage identical, summary). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like file_strings or file_hex.

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 explicitly states the tool is useful for detecting steganographic modifications, providing a clear use case. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use it, but the purpose is well-defined, implying it's for binary comparison scenarios.

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