Cmp Bars

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses pagination ('32 bars per page'). It says nothing about what metrics are returned, whether any state is mutated, permissions required, or how the comparison is scoped.

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 compact sentence with the scope and pagination front-loaded and no filler. It is terse rather than bloated, though the brevity borders on cryptic.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, which lightens the burden. Still, for a 4-parameter analysis tool with 0% schema coverage the description leaves too much (metrics definition, 'id'/'project' roles) unstated.

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 0% across 4 parameters. The description hints at the 'bars' range syntax (bars=[a, b]) and implies the 'stem' selector, but leaves 'id' and 'project' entirely undocumented, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 phrase 'Per-bar metrics for one stem' identifies the resource (bar-level metrics) and scoping (single stem), which does loosely separate it from cmp_sections and cmp_worst. But there is no verb and no statement of what is being compared or measured, so an agent cannot fully tell what 'cmp' computes without inspecting the output 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of any alternative among the many cmp_* siblings (cmp_worst, cmp_sections, cmp_zoom, cmp_summary). The pagination note is not usage guidance, so the agent gets no routing help.

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