auto_compare

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It discloses the analytical steps (schema diff, drift) and output categories (safe/risky/incompatible), but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, what 'drift' entails, or any potential side effects, leaving critical behavioral traits implied.

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, compact line that leads with the core question, then concisely outlines method and output. It is immediately scannable with no filler 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?

For a tool with three parameters and no annotations, the description is too terse to be fully self-sufficient. It clarifies the main sources but omits the 'keys' parameter, the meaning of 'drift', and any prerequisites. The output schema may cover return structure, but the overall context is incomplete for an agent to use it reliably.

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 must compensate. It effectively maps source_a to 'A' and source_b to 'B' through the drop-in question, clarifying their roles. However, the 'keys' parameter is never mentioned, leaving its function and relevance completely unexplained.

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 clearly defines the tool's core purpose: evaluating whether source B is a safe drop-in replacement for source A using schema diff and drift, culminating in a verdict. It differentiates from other comparison tools by emphasizing the compatibility question and the three-way verdict outcome.

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 question 'Is B a safe drop-in for A?' implies the primary use case of assessing replacement safety, but it does not explicitly contrast with similarly named siblings like compare_sources or detect_schema_evolution, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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