Get an ir-viewer.furiosa.dev/compare URL for two commits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context: short shas are accepted directly, no full-sha lookup is needed, and this viewer is separate from the dashboard's ir-text-viewer. However, it does not disclose whether the returned value is just a URL string, whether commit existence is verified, or any error/fallback behavior.

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 focused sentences with the core operation up front and a practical clarification second. Every sentence contributes value and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Adequate for a straightforward URL-builder tool: the schema covers all parameters and the description explains the key behavior. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description could be more complete by explicitly stating the output is a URL and by mentioning when to prefer sibling tools.

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 the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces the short-sha behavior that the schema already documents and adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the properties already say.

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 action (build) on a clear resource (compare link on ir-viewer.furiosa.dev) for base vs current commits, and clarifies this is distinct from the dashboard's ir-text-viewer. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as get_ir_viewer_url or compare_commits, though 'compare link' implies the core use case.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ir_viewer_url or compare_commits. The description implies a compare use case but does not state exclusions or direct the agent to a sibling for single-commit links or textual diffs.

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