compare_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral semantics: line-ending style and final newline are ignored during comparison. However, it omits what the 'counts' contain, whether output is truncated for large inputs, and any auth or performance traits.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core output statement front-loaded and the normalization caveat second. No filler, though it is terse to the point of omitting needed 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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must fully describe both behavior and return shape. It partially does ('unified diff and counts') but leaves the count format, output structure, and edge-case handling unspecified for a two-required-param tool.

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% and the description never mentions the 'before' and 'after' parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. The parameter names are largely self-explanatory, which prevents a score of 1, but the description does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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 states a specific verb and output ('Return a unified diff and counts'), which clearly identifies a text-comparison operation distinct from the analysis/inspection siblings. It stops short of explicitly ruling out sibling tools, but no sibling overlaps with diffing.

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 purpose implies when to use it (comparing two text blobs), but there is no explicit guidance about alternatives, prerequisites, size limits, or when another sibling like analyze_text would be more appropriate. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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