server_compare

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral details: caching behavior (snapshots vs live SSH audit) and mode switching (category vs check-level), which go beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

With a full input schema, clear annotations, and an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers the main functionality, preconditions (two registered servers), and caching behavior. It could mention error handling for unavailable servers, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent.

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?

All 4 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The overall description adds context by explaining the caching/fallback behavior related to 'fresh' and the two output modes related to 'detail', enhancing understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 the tool compares two servers side-by-side, returns category-level scores or check-level diffs, and uses cached snapshots with fallback. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like server_audit (single server audit) by specifying the comparative nature and dual server requirement.

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 for comparing two registered servers and explains the detail and fresh modes. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tool set.

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