compare_runs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the default behavior (comparing the two most recent runs), but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output looks like, or any preconditions such as run validity.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical default note is placed appropriately.

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 comparison tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits the shape of the comparison result, how checks are matched, and how to specify runs beyond an implicit default.

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% and there are two parameters, so the description must compensate. It only alludes to the parameters as 'two runs' and the default behavior; it does not explain what values run_a and run_b accept or that null triggers the default.

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 states a specific verb and resource: comparing issue counts by check between two runs. It is distinguishable from siblings like find_issues or explain_issue, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It implies usage when comparing two runs and explains the default when runs are omitted. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over find_issues or other sibling tools, nor any exclusions.

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