compare_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side-effect profile. The description adds value by explaining the comparison logic (only issues not present on healthy device) and the return format (lists with counts). It does not contradict annotations and provides context beyond what the structured fields carry.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by a clean Args list and a Returns note. There is no wasted text; each sentence earns its place. The structure makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 has 8 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description covers all parameters, explains the comparison semantics, and describes the return keys. It is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without external documentation. The only minor gap is that device identifiers are not specified as names or IDs, but this is likely context-dependent and not critical.

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 fully compensates by explaining every parameter in the Args block: healthy_device, problem_device, since, until, source, min_severity, include_noise, and top. Each gets a concise, meaningful definition (e.g., 'A device that patches correctly', 'WARN (default) or ERROR'). This is essential for an agent to populate parameters correctly.

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 action ('Show warnings and errors on a problem device that a healthy device does not have') with a clear resource and comparison logic. It is distinct from siblings like diagnose or summarize_errors, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'Show' and the two-device comparison make the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool (when you have a healthy and problem device to compare) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. There is no guidance on choosing between this and diagnose or summarize_errors. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but explicit routing would be better.

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