unifier_compare_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the read-only nature, the multi-shell query, per-shell validation, and that active V2 metadata is used. It omits failure behavior when a shell fails validation, permission requirements, and any rate/size limits.

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?

Two dense sentences with the read-only guarantee front-loaded and no wasted words. Structure is good, though it could be marginally more front-loaded on the 'what you get back' element.

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 read-only tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a fully undocumented parameter, the description does reasonably well by naming the returned artifact ('tabla compacta comparable') but leaves input format and validation-failure behavior unexplained.

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% for the single parameter project_numbers. 'Consulta varios shells' hints at plural inputs, but the description never explains the identifier format or the 2-item minimum / 10-item maximum constraints that the schema enforces without documentation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Comparador de proyectos'), plus scope ('de solo lectura') and mechanism (multi-shell query, V2 metadata cross-reference). An agent can distinguish it from single-shell readers like unifier_read_shell_360, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 scenario (comparing multiple projects) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives such as unifier_list_shells or unifier_project_health, and no prerequisites. Similar to the MID calibration case, reuse context is left entirely to inference.

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