compare_config_revisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool defaults to comparing against the current running config when revision_id_after is not provided. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining a key default behavior, enhancing transparency for an otherwise simple read operation.

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 two sentences, immediately front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence clarifies the optional parameter behavior without redundancy. Every word earns its place; there is no padding or unnecessary detail.

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 simple read-only comparison tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, this description is complete. It explains the core function and the key optional behavior. Return format details are handled by the output schema, so no further explanation is needed. The tool is fully specified for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100%, so parameters are already well-documented: revision_id_before is 'Earlier revision ID (from get_config_history)' and revision_id_after is 'Later revision ID (optional — defaults to current config)'. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond paraphrasing the default behavior, which the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Compare two configuration revisions to see what changed.' This is a specific verb ('compare') plus resource ('configuration revisions') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_config_revision (which retrieves a single revision) and get_config_history (which lists revisions). The added note about comparing against the current running config further clarifies its scope.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: when comparing two revisions, and it explains the behavior when revision_id_after is omitted. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use get_config_revision to view a single revision instead.' This is clear context without explicit when-not-to-use guidance, matching a 4.

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