compare_siblings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It communicates the intended outcome (understanding differences, compatibilities, parenting) but does not disclose how the comparison is performed, whether birthTime is required for accuracy, or what the output format looks like. For a read-only analysis tool, this is a moderate gap.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core verb 'Compare' and the resource 'Saju temperament profiles.' Every clause adds meaningful context, and there is no redundant or filler 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?

The input schema thoroughly documents the parameters, but there is no output schema and no mention of what the tool returns. The description does not specify whether the output is a textual report, a structured profile, or a list of recommendations. This is a notable gap for a tool with no annotations and two nested objects.

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 schema has 100% description coverage over all parameters, so a baseline score of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond indicating that the two objects represent siblings. It does not clarify optional vs. required behavior for birthTime or any edge cases.

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 function: comparing Saju temperament profiles of two siblings. The verb 'Compare' is specific, and the resource 'two siblings' makes it distinguishable from the sibling tools (analyze_child_temperament for individual profiles, explain_five_elements for element theory). The purpose is further clarified by mentioning differences, compatibilities, and parenting approaches.

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 implies usage when the user wants to compare two siblings, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or recommend alternatives like analyze_child_temperament for single children. An agent can infer the context from the phrase 'two siblings,' but there is no direct routing guidance.

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