Comparar modelos

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'mostra a classificação' indicating a ranking output, but it doesn't disclose how the comparison works, whether it's a read-only operation, any rate limits, or what happens if fewer than 2 or more than 4 IDs are given (though schema enforces this). The term 'mostra' implies a non-destructive read, but this is not explicitly confirmed.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action (compare and show ranking). It's appropriately concise for a straightforward tool.

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?

For a tool with 2 params, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-line description is insufficient. An agent needs to know what 'comparison' entails, what the ranking output looks like, and any constraints or preconditions. The description provides only basic purpose, not enough for correct invocation without additional inference.

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. It says 'até quatro modelos' which adds semantic meaning to the IDs parameter (max 4, min 2), and mentions 'cenário específico' relating to the scenario parameter. However, it doesn't elaborate on what each scenario means or how IDs are specified, which leaves significant ambiguity.

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 compares up to four models and shows a ranking, which goes beyond just repeating the title 'Comparar modelos'. However, it doesn't explicitly name any sibling tool for differentiation, and the title is in Portuguese while the description is in Spanish, which is slightly inconsistent but not misleading.

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 mentions 'para um cenário específico', implying use case specificity, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over list_models, recommend_model, or explain_scenarios. The distinction is not explicitly made, so an agent must infer from context that this is for comparing multiple models side-by-side.

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