Compare two passages overall and by specified aspects. Understand that agreement does not confirm truth of either passage.
Compare two passages overall and by aspect. Agreement is not evidence that either passage is true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| aspects | No | ||
| passage_a | Yes | ||
| passage_b | Yes | ||
| auto_accept | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value with the caveat that agreement is not evidence of truth. This is a useful interpretive note. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or any other behavioral traits, leaving gaps despite the annotation coverage.
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 with no fluff. The purpose is stated first, followed by a crucial caveat. This is maximally concise and well-structured for the information it conveys.
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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It omits explanations for auto_accept, what aspects should be, the return value, and any prerequisites. The annotation safety profile helps, but the description leaves too much unexplained for an agent to call it correctly.
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%, so the description must explain parameters. It hints at passage_a, passage_b, and aspects ('two passages', 'by aspect'), but does not clarify the meaning of 'aspects' or explain auto_accept at all. The auto_accept parameter is entirely undocumented, leaving a significant gap.
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 passages, both overall and by aspect. The verb 'compare' and resource 'two passages' are specific, and the mention of 'by aspect' adds nuance. It distinguishes from siblings like extract or classify, though it could be more explicit about what comparison entails (similarity vs difference).
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (system_one_belay, system_one_verify, etc.). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternative tools. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.