compare_windows

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses an important limitation—upstream/paths comparison is unavailable via the rollup—and explains how dimension choice changes behavior, but it does not state return format, whether the operation is read-only, or any other side effects. For a comparison tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the core comparison and immediately explain window shape and dimension semantics. The final parenthetical routes readers to the correct sibling without extra 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?

The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and a key exclusion, and there is no output schema to describe returns. Still, it omits the shape of the comparison result and details of `target`/`from`/`to` formats, which an agent would need for robust invocation.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining that each window is {from, to} and by giving meaning to all three enum values for `dimension`. It does not explain the `target` parameter or the format/type of `from` and `to`, leaving a small gap.

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?

States a specific operation: compare baseline (window_a) vs event (window_b) for a target, and enumerates what each dimension does. It distinguishes itself from sibling `paths` by explicitly saying upstream/paths comparison is not available via the rollup and to use `paths` instead. This is enough to know exactly what the tool does and what it is not.

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?

Provides clear usage semantics: `dimension=volume` compares totals, while `origin`/`collector` compare per-group breakdowns to surface new origins or shifted collector mix. It explicitly names an alternative (`paths`) for the unsupported upstream/paths comparison, so an agent knows when not to use this tool.

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