office_compare_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context by naming what the report contains (removed paragraphs, slide content changes, sheet/cell changes) and confirming neither file is modified. It omits behavior around result truncation/limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action and scope front-loaded and the non-mutation guarantee placed at the end as a supporting clause. Every phrase earns its place.

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 read-only comparison tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable sketch of the report contents, but it never explains the maxChanges cap or what happens when changes exceed it — the single most important behavioral detail an agent needs when interpreting results.

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 67%: beforePath and afterPath are documented in the schema, but maxChanges has no schema description and the tool description never mentions it at all, despite a default of 100 and a 1-1000 range that materially bounds the output. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (compare) and resource (two Office files of the same format) with the semantic scope and the reported artifact types (Word paragraphs, PowerPoint slides, Excel cells). An agent can distinguish this from office_inspect_file or office_quality_check 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?

The before/after framing implies the revision-comparison use case, and 'of the same format' implies a constraint, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when the tool is not appropriate, and no named alternative among the many sibling inspect/audit tools.

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