compare_mod_configs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states the tool reports added, removed, changed, and unchanged files with key-level diff info, which gives a good sense of the output. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it modifies anything), performance implications, or error conditions. Since it's a read-only comparison tool, the lack of explicit 'read-only' statement is a minor gap, but the description does convey the core behavior.

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 and front-loaded: it states the primary action ('Compare two config directories') and the key output ('Reports added, removed, changed, and unchanged config files with key-level diff info') in two sentences. Every word earns its place, and the example in parentheses adds useful context without bloat.

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 (two parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, the output categories, and the diff granularity. The only missing piece is explicit guidance on error handling or edge cases (e.g., what happens if directories don't exist), but for a comparison tool, the description is sufficient for an agent to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (oldConfigDir and newConfigDir) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds the context that these are directories to compare, but does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: comparing two config directories and reporting added, removed, changed, and unchanged files with key-level diff info. It uses a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('config directories'), and the example 'before/after a modpack update' clarifies the use case. It distinguishes itself from siblings like read_mod_config (which reads a single config) and list_mod_configs (which lists configs) by focusing on comparison.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: comparing two config directories, e.g., before/after a modpack update. It implies the use case but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the sibling tools are distinct enough that an agent can infer the appropriate choice. The description could be improved by explicitly noting that this is for directory-level comparison, not single-file comparison.

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