compare_signatures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the one-line purpose. It does not say whether this is a read-only analysis, whether it mutates the assembly, what permissions or loaded-assembly state are required, or what a comparison result looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is appropriate for a narrowly scoped tool. It is terse rather than padded, though it borders on under-specified for a 5-parameter operation.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place behavioral and result context could appear, and it is silent on both. For a patch-signature comparison tool the agent gets no indication of what a result means (match/mismatch/diagnostic) or what state the target assembly must be in.

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%, with each of the five parameters documented (patch_kind, target_type, patch_params, game_assembly, target_method), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a specific verb (compare) and the two resources being compared (expected Harmony patch signature vs actual target method), so an agent knows roughly what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like validate_patch_target or verify_patches, which likely overlap in the patch-validation space.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as validate_patch_target or verify_patches. The agent is left to infer when signature comparison is the right call versus other patch-validation tools.

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