compare-profiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses return values (metrics, verdict, differences, recommendations) and provides a detailed example output, giving agents a clear behavioral picture. It doesn't mention error handling or assumptions, preventing a 5.

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 well-organized into clear sections (purpose, when-to-use, parameters, returns, example). The example is illustrative but makes it somewhat long. Each section earns its place, though brevity could be improved.

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 moderate complexity (two nested objects, no output schema), the description compensates well by listing return categories and giving a concrete example. It could be more exhaustive about edge cases but largely covers necessary context.

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 already covers both parameters (baseline/optimized) with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The tool description adds value by specifying the source (from profile-parsing) and showing a concrete example of how profiles are structured, pushing it to 4.

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 opens with a clear action: 'Compare two parsing profiles to measure optimization impact.' This specific verb+resource phrase distinguishes it from siblings like compare-grammars and ties to the profile-parsing workflow.

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?

A dedicated 'When to use' section lists concrete scenarios: validating optimizations, A/B testing, and regression testing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls just 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.