Diff source maps

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds value by specifying the exact comparison dimensions (source membership and hashes of sourcesContent). However, it does not disclose the output structure, whether the operation has side effects (though 'compare' suggests read-only), or how edge cases like missing sourcesContent are handled.

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 14-word sentence that front-loads the main verb and avoids any filler. Every word contributes to defining the tool's role, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description must explain the return value and parameter semantics to be complete. It does not describe the diff output format, nor does it clarify lineThreshold or how maps are associated with the 'locally parsed' state. These gaps leave the tool under-specified for reliable use.

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%, and the description only alludes to the two map IDs via 'two locally parsed source maps.' The third parameter, 'lineThreshold,' is not mentioned, leaving its meaning and behavior completely unexplained.

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 identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Compare') and exactly what is compared ('source membership and sourcesContent hashes') between two source maps. This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like sourcemap_parse_v4, which parses, and sourcemap_lookup, which looks up mappings.

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 phrase 'locally parsed source maps' implies the prerequisite that maps must already be parsed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when to avoid using it. Usage context is hinted rather than explicitly documented.

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