cross_branch_ab_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about how features are ranked, what outcome data it requires, whether results are cached, or what happens when branches are sparse. The remaining two sentences are a Pro-tier advertisement that conveys no behavioral information about this tool.

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 purpose is correctly front-loaded in one sentence, but the following two sentences are a pricing upsell with a tracking URL, entirely unrelated to invoking this report. Two-thirds of the text does not earn its place.

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 two-parameter analytical report with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain required inputs, expected data conditions, and the shape of the ranking. It provides none of that, and instead spends its space on subscription marketing.

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 only 50%: design_id has no description anywhere, and min_outcomes_per_branch is documented only as 'Default: 3.' The description adds nothing about what design_id identifies or how the threshold changes the ranking, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb (rank), resource (semantic features), and scope (across branches), which is far better than restating the name. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical siblings cross_preset_ab_report and cross_feature_ab_report, leaving the agent to infer the difference from 'branch' alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this report versus compare_branches, cross_preset_ab_report, or cross_feature_ab_report, and no prerequisites (e.g. branches needing outcome data) are given. The agent receives no routing guidance.

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