compare_story_versions

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

The description fails to disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. With no annotations provided, the description should have filled this gap but did not.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could include critical information about output or usage without harming conciseness.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain what the comparison result looks like (e.g., a list of changes, diff text). It also does not clarify that 'version_v2' is compared to the current version, which is only hinted in the schema. The tool's output and behavior are under-specified.

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 100%, providing clear parameter descriptions ('Story ID' and 'Version ID to compare against current'). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Compares two versions of a story to identify changes,' which specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from similar ones like 'get_story_versions' by focusing on identifying changes rather than just listing versions, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_story_versions' or 'restore_story'. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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