self_verify_compare

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying that regressions across four dimensions are reported, but it does not disclose the output shape, what happens if a key is missing, or why an identical re-run would not be idempotent. Moderate added context beyond 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero filler. The four-item regression list is dense but each item is informative. Slight ding for domain jargon ('issueops state') that could cost a moment of parsing, but overall efficient.

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 read-only, three-parameter comparison tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is compared and against what inputs. The only meaningful gap is the return structure and error behavior, which is small given readOnlyHint and complete parameter documentation.

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 100%, so all three parameters including the max_elapsed_regression_pct default of 20 are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions elapsed-time regressions but adds no parameter-level syntax or interpretation beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb ('Compare'), a specific resource ('two saved self-verification loop summary checkpoints from issueops state'), and enumerates the comparison dimensions (elapsed-time, failed-step, step-label, goal-score). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like self_verify_history or self_verify_candidates without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied: you have two saved checkpoint keys and want a diff. However, no explicit guidance is given on when to prefer this over self_verify_history or self_verify_candidates, nor are prerequisites (e.g., that both keys must already exist in state) stated. Adequate but with clear routing gaps.

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