compare_frontend_options

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses behavioral traits: it separates facts from inferences and never claims unverified compatibility. It also notes the deprecated `resources` alias, adding context about backward compatibility. No contradiction with 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?

The description is only three sentences with the main purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and primary parameter, and the output schema likely handles return values. However, it omits the `criteria` parameter semantics and does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, leaving some gaps for safe invocation.

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 description explains `options` as a list of ids/names and identifies `resources` as a deprecated alias. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the `criteria` parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving a significant gap in parameter understanding.

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 frontend options using id or name, which is a specific verb+resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like discover_frontend_resources or recommend_frontend_stack, which have different actions. The mention of 'Separates facts from inferences' adds further specificity.

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 provides clear context that the tool is used for comparing a list of options and explains the primary parameter and deprecated alias. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving exclusion logic to the agent.

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