Compare two projects

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it performs a structural diff, accepts files or inline objects, and reports differences across metadata, instruments, and note content. No contradictions.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the primary action and the intended use case are front-loaded.

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 read-only safety profile and intended use case are clear, and listing the diff categories covers the return behavior enough for many calls. However, with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the absent parameter relationship guidance makes the definition incomplete for confident 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify the four parameters. It says projects can be 'files or inline objects', which hints at projectA/projectB vs projectPathA/projectPathB, but it never maps parameters to their roles or explains how object and path arguments relate, leaving a caller to guess.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Structurally compare two FamiStudio projects', and narrows the scope to 'metadata, instruments and per-note content'. This clearly separates it from the sibling tools, none of which are described as a two-project diff.

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?

It gives an explicit use case: 'Use it to confirm that a rewrite did not change the musical content.' It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous.

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