Compare Agent Behavior

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'deterministic' but does not explain what the comparison output looks like, whether it has side effects, or what happens on failure. This is insufficient for a tool that produces a result.

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 sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain return values or outcomes. It does not. It also lacks details about the optional contract parameter and what 'compare' means beyond a generic operation.

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?

The input schema has zero parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not explain each parameter. It hints at baseline and candidate via phrasing but leaves the 'contract' parameter ambiguous and does not clarify optionality or expected formats.

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 states the tool's action ('Compare'), the resources ('baseline and candidate trace'), and the context ('against deterministic observable-behavior contracts'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like render, validate, explain, and fingerprint, which have different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tool names imply different functions, but the description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to other tools.

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