compare_graph_to_scip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the prerequisite oracle data, the no-data behavior (reports nothing), and the diagnostic nature of the tool. It doesn't discuss side effects, but the tool is framed as a read-only cross-check/report.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core action and resource in the first clause, then adds prerequisite and edge-case behavior. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool has one well-documented parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and empty-result behavior. It could mention the return format or ordering of edges, but for a diagnostic tool the description is adequately complete.

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 100% for the single worktree parameter, and the schema already explains absolute path, linked worktree overlay, default behavior, and silent ignoring of non-linked paths. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Cross-check') and names the exact resources involved (tree-sitter graph vs SCIP compiler oracle). It also states what the tool reports (edges where they disagree on callee resolution), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_graph_to_text.

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 gives clear usage context: it's a resolver-debugging diagnostic and requires 'rag-rat oracle run' to have been executed first. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the intended scenario is evident.

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