Compare Hermes config surfaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value with 'redaction and presence-only handling for sensitive values,' which is useful behavioral disclosure about how sensitive config values are treated during comparison. However, it doesn't explain what 'presence-only handling' means concretely or describe the comparison output format for differing values. Given strong annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate — the description adds meaningful context but isn't rich.

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 a single, focused sentence that packs purpose and key behavioral traits (redaction, presence-only, allowlisted, top-level keys) efficiently. There is no wasted wording and no filler. It could arguably add a sentence about usage or output, but as written it earns its place without padding.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage and 2 required, plus an output schema (though the return shape isn't described). The description names the comparison function and sensitive-value handling but does not clarify the purpose of the optional params (home, profile, toolkit_root), the meaning of 'allowlisted' in operational terms, or the comparison output structure. For a tool of this complexity with zero schema coverage, the description is functional but leaves material gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'selected top-level config keys' and 'two allowlisted YAML surfaces,' which maps to the 'keys' and the two config params (left_config/right_config). However, the meaning of 'allowlisted' in relation to the config surfaces, and the roles of home, profile, and toolkit_root (likely path resolution params), are undocumented in both schema and description. The description covers the core comparison params but leaves the supporting params unexplained.

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 operation: 'Compare selected top-level config keys across two allowlisted YAML surfaces.' It names the resources (config keys, YAML surfaces) and the verb (compare). It could be slightly clearer about the output being a diff/report, but it distinguishes this from hermes_config_summary (which summarizes a single config) and differentiates from patch tools. The phrase 'allowlisted' adds scoping context.

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 implies comparative usage between two config surfaces, and sibling tools like hermes_config_summary, hermes_config_patch_apply, and hermes_profiles_list provide natural alternatives. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like whether the configs must be loaded or whether keys is optional. The 'selected top-level config keys' wording implies keys parameter drives comparison, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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