compare_logs

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it reports differences only, explicitly does not judge which side is right, and enumerates what is compared. This goes beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the framing question, then a tight enumeration of outputs followed by the A/B convention. Every sentence earns its place; only the parenthetical example is mildly decorative.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, yet the description still usefully summarizes what is compared. For a two-param read-only tool, remaining gaps (path format, same-vehicle validation behavior) are minor.

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 coverage is 0% on two path parameters, but the description compensates partially by defining the semantic convention for A versus B (earlier/good vs later/bad). It says nothing about acceptable path formats or how the two logs must relate beyond "same vehicle".

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?

Specific verb+resource (compare two logs of the same vehicle) with a concrete framing question, and the content it produces is enumerated. An agent can distinguish it from analyze_log and log_summary without opening the schema.

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?

Strong implied usage context ("it flew fine last week", before/after a change) and the A=earlier/good, B=later/bad convention tell the agent exactly when and how to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so not a 5.

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