cart_diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explains that the tool shows missing/extra/quantity mismatches, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or non-mutating, nor does it cover edge cases or error handling. This is partial disclosure—some behavioral context is given, but not a full safety profile.

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 states the purpose and the key outputs with zero wasted words. It is exemplary in 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it compares, what it reports, and the input format (implied via schema). It lacks explicit mutation status, but the comparison context makes it reasonably complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, just reinforcing that expected SKUs and quantity pairs are involved. The schema already documents the comma-separated format and sku:qty pairs, so the description doesn't add notable extra meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') and clearly identifies the resource (expected SKUs vs. actual cart) and the output categories (missing, extra, quantity mismatches). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'cart', 'add', and 'remove'.

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 establishes a clear context for when to use the tool: whenever you need to verify that the cart matches an expected list of SKUs. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the comparison purpose is evident, and no exclusions are needed for this straightforward tool.

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