diff

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description adds behavioral details: 'No mutation is applied' reinforces the read-only nature but also explains the output behavior 'unclassified changes are named.' The phrase 'supported subset' discloses a limitation, which is valuable context not captured by annotations.

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, tightly worded sentence. It front-loads the action ('Classify') and immediately specifies the scope, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 annotations and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for understanding the tool's core function. It covers the input concept, the behavior, and a key limitation. However, the lack of explicit parameter mapping and any mention of error scenarios or prerequisites leaves minor gaps, so it does not earn a 5.

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?

With 0% schema_description_coverage, the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It mentions a 'supplied CharacterSnapshotV1 object' and a 'freshly observed public character,' but does not map these to the actual parameter names 'ref' and 'baseline.' This leaves ambiguity about which parameter is which, especially since 'ref' is a string and 'baseline' is an object.

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 'Classify' and a precise resource: 'changes between a supplied CharacterSnapshotV1 object and a freshly observed public character.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'snapshot' or 'derive' by focusing on difference classification rather than creation or derivation.

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 usage context—when you need to classify changes between a saved snapshot and a current public character—but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Sibling tool names are present but not referenced.

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