server_compare

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds behavioral details: caching vs live fallback and default vs detail mode, which go beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose and quickly cover key behaviors (caching, fallback, output modes). Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return types (category score comparison or check-level diff). It also covers preconditions (registered servers) and behavior (caching). While the exact output format could be more detailed, it is sufficient for a 4-parameter comparison tool.

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?

Input schema provides full coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters (100%). The description adds context about default modes (snapshots vs live, category vs detail), but the schema already covers parameter meanings. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value without being essential.

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 explicitly states the tool compares two servers side-by-side, distinguishes between category-level score comparison and check-level diff in detail mode. It clearly identifies the verb (compare) and resource (servers), and the context of sibling tools like server_audit suggests 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 mentions when to use the tool (comparing two registered servers), when it uses cached snapshots vs live audit, and implies prerequisites (registered servers). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to siblings, but provides adequate context for typical use.

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