Rank same-pattern alternatives

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the data used ('verdicts and measured harness results') but doesn't disclose details like response format or limitations. This aligns with annotations and adds some value, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence that is direct and jargon-free. Every word adds meaning (verb, resource, comparison criteria), with no redundant filler.

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 low-complexity read-only tool with a single parameter, annotations, and an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'compare' returns (e.g., ranking or differences), but the existing output schema likely covers that.

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 has 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'name' parameter ('Exact component name or slug'). The tool description adds context about comparing 'same-pattern' candidates but doesn't add param-specific syntax or format details, so it stays at the baseline.

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 uses the specific verb 'Compare' with the resource 'same-pattern candidates' and clarifies the method ('using their verdicts and measured harness results'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like find_component or check_component, though it doesn't explicitly state 'rank' as the title does.

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 usage when same-pattern candidates need comparison, which is a clear context. However, it provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives among sibling tools, so it gets a mid-range score for implied rather than explicit guidance.

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