compare_trees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It discloses the two metrics and implies read-only comparison, but does not state that it is non-destructive, what happens with mismatched tree sizes, or whether branch lengths are ignored. The existence of an output schema is not referenced.

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 concise (two sentences plus bullet list) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds information. However, the metrics list could be integrated more cleanly.

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 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It partially explains one parameter and lacks behavioral details. It does not mention return format or how results relate to the metrics. The presence of many sibling tools makes the lack of differentiation a gap.

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 explain parameters. It only describes the 'metric' parameter (listing 'rf' and 'triplets'), but does not explain 'dataset_id', 'tree_key1', or 'tree_key2'. This leaves three required parameters undocumented.

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 two trees in the same dataset.' It lists two metrics (RF and triplets), giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like compute_dissimilarity or plot_tree, which could cause confusion.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or when to choose a different tool for comparing trees. The context signals show 17 sibling tools, but no differentiation is offered.

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