rca_report_compare

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

The description explicitly states the tool persists reports to storage ('save: persist to storage'), which adds transparency beyond annotations. Annotations have destructiveHint=false, consistent with saving. The return type (str) and content ('Comparative report with consensus_root_causes table') are disclosed. No contradictions found.

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 (around 5 lines) and well-structured: purpose statement first, then Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Ideal for quick comprehension.

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's moderate complexity, the description covers the core purpose, all parameters with constraints, return type and content. The output schema exists (str) and the description explains the return value. Sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by briefly explaining each parameter: result_ids (2-10 result IDs), format (markdown|html), title (report title), save (persist to storage). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and defaults, though more detail could be helpful.

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 generates a comparative report across 2-10 RCA results, highlighting consensus root causes, agreement percentages, and per-model summaries. This distinguishes it from siblings like rca_analysis_compare (comparison of analyses) and rca_report_generate (single report generation).

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 specifies the range of result_ids (2-10) and lists all parameters, providing clear usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like rca_analysis_compare or rca_report_generate, missing explicit when-not or alternative guidance.

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