compare_versions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It goes beyond a vague 'compare' by specifying exactly what the output contains: CVEs fixed in v2, new CVEs in v2, and CVEs present in both. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it does not mention edge cases or error handling.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-line purpose, a succinct list of what it shows, and a compact Args section with examples. Every sentence contributes value with no filler or redundancy.

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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and minimal parameter schema, the description must be self-sufficient. It adequately covers the purpose, return categories, and parameter meanings. It is complete enough for a straightforward comparison tool, though it could mention what happens with identical or invalid versions.

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?

The input schema is minimal (only type string and titles), and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining each parameter: 'v1: First PostgreSQL version (e.g. "16.3")' and similarly for v2, including example formats. This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema, though it stops short of specifying constraints like valid version ranges.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Compare the CVE profiles of two PostgreSQL versions side by side.' It enumerates the three distinct output categories (fixed, new, present in both), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_cves or get_summary that likely handle single versions.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to compare two versions' CVE profiles. It mentions 'side by side' and lists the comparison outcomes, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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