compare_site

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a useful specific behavioral guarantee: it does not issue send authorization, which clarifies that no deployment trigger is involved. This does not contradict the annotations.

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?

One compact sentence with the primary behavior front-loaded and a useful restriction in the second clause. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the core action and a key constraint. However, the lack of parameter semantics and explicit sibling differentiation leaves the tool only minimally complete.

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% and the description does not explain what 'domain' means or how it relates to local/remote file comparison. The parameter name and maxLength=253 provide some hint, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 concrete action ('Compara arquivos locais/remotos') and adds a boundary ('não emite autorização de envio'), which distinguishes it from deployment-oriented siblings like deploy_site. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly name the exact comparison target or criterion.

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 negative clause 'não emite autorização de envio' implies this is a safe comparison action rather than a deploy, but the description does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives such as deploy_site or preview_deploy. Usage context must be inferred.

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