Compare Endings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing about cost, whether comparison requires prior simulation runs, how seed and runs_per_ending affect determinism, or what the comparison outputs. The presence of a seed and runs_per_ending implies sampling/simulation is involved, but that is never made explicit.

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 short clause with no filler and the core action front-loaded. Brevity is a virtue here, though the terseness is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 four-parameter analytical tool with no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema, one line of description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what inputs are needed, what the comparison returns, or whether it is expensive to call.

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 four parameters (seed, ending_ids, project_id, runs_per_ending) are entirely undocumented. The description hints at ending_ids and event-overlap concepts, but says nothing about seed, project_id, or how many runs are needed, leaving most parameters unhinted.

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 names a concrete verb (对比/compare) and a specific object: multi-ending condition differences plus overlap of experienced events. That is more than a restatement of the title. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as map_ending_space or simulate_run, which also operate on endings.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for compare_endings rather than map_ending_space, simulate_run, or register_ending_axis. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context about what kind of question this tool answers.

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