compare_mods

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It tells the agent what is compared and between what targets, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the result format is, how comparison is performed (e.g., names, versions, hashes), or what happens on missing/ambiguous targets.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It efficiently communicates the action and both valid comparison target types in a compact way.

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?

With only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description needs to provide more operational context. It adequately defines the inputs but omits what the comparison returns, whether there are side effects, and how success or failure is signaled. An agent could invoke the tool but would lack clear expectations for the result.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds the insight that 'mod jars' are the subject and clarifies left/right roles, but it does not provide meaningful extra semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('mod jars'), and defines the exact scope: between two instances, or between an instance and a registered/server mods folder. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_mods or analyze_mods by emphasizing a comparative operation.

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 clearly states the supported comparison configurations (instance-to-instance, or instance-to-folder), which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or explain when not to use this tool, such as when plain listing or deeper analysis would be more suitable.

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