compare_proposal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently describes the limited keyword set, that most softened wording is missed, and that it only checks constraint/goal anchors. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, though 'compare' suggests read-only.

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 several sentences long and includes specific details, but it could be more concise. It front-loads the purpose but then adds caveats that could be reorganized. Overall, it is adequate but not extremely efficient.

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 the complexity and 0% schema coverage, the description should cover operation and inputs comprehensively. It explains the special behavior but does not mention what the tool returns (output schema exists but not described), nor does it reinforce that both states are required. The description is incomplete for a 3-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 context about the 'anchors' parameter (checks constraint/goal anchors) but does not explain 'state_a' or 'state_b' at all. The description only partially covers the semantics of the parameters.

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 it is a specialized compare for proposals, distinguishing it from sibling tools like compare_stance or compare_commitment. It specifies the unique behavior: flags strength regression for a fixed keyword set and checks constraint/goal anchors. This provides a specific verb and resource with differentiation.

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 the tool is for proposals, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It mentions limitations (narrow keyword set, missed wording) but no direct guidance on when to choose this over compare_stance or compare_commitment.

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