explain_match

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states basic functionality without disclosing side effects, computational cost, or that the tool is read-only. The description adds little beyond what is expected from the name.

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, with the main purpose stated first. The parameter list is slightly redundant given the schema, but it does not add unnecessary length. Overall, it is 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 5 parameters (2 required, 2 enums) and no annotations, the description covers the basic operation but omits details about return value format (though output schema exists) and when to use specific profiles or strategies. It is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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%, so the description must compensate. However, it merely restates parameter names and types (e.g., 'First text value') without adding meaningful behavioral constraints or semantics, such as explaining the effect of different profiles or strategies.

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: compare two strings and explain why they match or differ. It distinguishes itself from siblings like compare_strings (which just compares) and find_best_matches (which finds best match rather than explaining a specific pair).

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 an explanation of string matching is needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_strings or find_duplicate_groups. No exclusions or context are provided.

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