compare_scenarios

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: first scenario as baseline, side-by-side comparison with deltas, and optional ranking via compare_metric/goal. However, it does not mention whether the tool has side effects (e.g., executing runs) or what happens with different numbers of scenarios, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and options without redundant words. Every clause adds value: 'Run 2-3 scenarios', 'compare key_results side by side with deltas', 'baseline', and optional ranking.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain both inputs and outputs. It partially explains outputs (key_results, deltas) but omits details on horizon, include_projections, and the required structure of scenarios. For a tool with 5 parameters and no additional schema context, the description is incomplete.

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. It adds semantic context for compare_metric and goal (ranking), and implies scenarios holds the scenario list. However, horizon and include_projections are completely unexplained, and the structure of scenario objects is not addressed. With 5 parameters and only 2 partially clarified, the description does not sufficiently compensate.

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?

Description uses specific verbs (run, compare) and clearly states the resource (scenarios) and output (key_results side by side with deltas). It distinguishes from siblings like run_scenario by explicitly addressing 2-3 scenarios and comparison, and from sensitivity_analysis by focusing on comparison rather than sensitivity.

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 usage when comparing multiple scenarios (2-3) and mentions baseline/deltas, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or include exclusions. There is no alternative named, leaving the guidance at an implied level rather than explicit.

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