rca_report_compare

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

Annotations are mostly false/uninformative, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well: it discloses the default save behavior, plan gating for html, and the output type. It could be more explicit about the side effect of persisting reports, but the save parameter description covers this adequately.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose, sibling differentiation, plan caveat, then clearly organized args and return value. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 a nested input object and plan-dependent behavior, the description covers the essential call context: ID source, count constraints, format options, save defaults, and return shape. It does not explicitly describe client_id semantics, but that field is documented in the input schema and is not central to correct invocation.

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 compensate. The Args section explains result_ids, format, title, and save semantics, including source tools, defaults, and plan restrictions. It omits token and client_id, but those are less agent-critical and the schema itself provides basic descriptions for them.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a comparative report across 2–10 RCA results' and lists concrete outputs (consensus root causes, model agreement percentages, per-model summaries). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from rca_analysis_compare by targeting a shareable formatted document rather than raw JSON.

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 explicitly says to use this tool instead of rca_analysis_compare when a formatted document is wanted, giving a clear decision rule. It also provides plan-specific guidance for the html format and free plans, and tells the agent where result IDs come from (rca_analysis_run or rca_analysis_list_results).

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