compare_releases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states that it 'show[s] differences category-wise', but does not disclose whether it is a safe read-only operation, what the output structure looks like, or any error/edge-case behavior. This is minimal for a comparison 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?

A single sentence that immediately states the action and resource, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with two fully described parameters, but the description lacks behavioral context (e.g., output format, limitations) and usage guidance. It is adequate for a basic comparison tool but leaves gaps in the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 already provides complete descriptions for both parameters, including available version values (11.46, 11.44), so the description adds no new semantics about parameter syntax or relationships. Baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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 the specific verb 'compare' with the resource 'two Commvault release versions' and the outcome 'show differences category-wise', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_release_changes or generate_summary, which are not about comparing two versions.

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 over alternatives such as get_release_changes or get_category_changes. It only states the function, without exclusions or contextual recommendations.

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