frame_compare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is deterministic, returns identical results for identical inputs, and does not invoke an LLM. It also explains what the output includes (analysis, agent_guidance, provenance), providing transparency beyond basic behavior.

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 well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then listing outputs, and finally additional traits (deterministic, no LLM). It is slightly long but each sentence adds value, and it front-loads the most important information.

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 thoroughly explains what the tool returns (analysis, agent_guidance, provenance). It covers parameter constraints (word count, language, same subject) and behavioral traits. The context is complete for an agent to understand when and how to use the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: documents must be English, 300-10000 words, and on the same subject. It also clarifies that labels are optional and used in the narrative, which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 does 'deterministic structural comparison of two documents on the same subject' and lists specific outputs (per-document summaries, cross-document comparison, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('two documents'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'frame_check'.

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 when to use (documents on same subject, deterministic comparison) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives. It notes that repeated calls return identical results and that no LLM is invoked, but lacks direct guidance on choosing this over the sibling tool.

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