Cmp List

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden alone. It does disclose two behavioral traits beyond the schema: the result is exhaustive ('All stored comparisons') and sorted oldest-first, which supports trend reading. It says nothing about whether the call is read-only or how the required project scopes the result.

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 tightly-packed sentence with the key facts (scope, payload, ordering, purpose) front-loaded and no filler. It is terse rather than padded, though the compressed phrasing costs some precision.

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 shape need not be explained, but for a tool whose only required parameter is undocumented, and with no annotations and no differentiation from five sibling cmp_* tools, the description leaves too much for the agent to infer before calling.

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% and the sole required parameter 'project' is never mentioned in the description. Because 'All stored comparisons' suggests an unfiltered list, the description arguably obscures whether project is a filter or a container, leaving the parameter's meaning to guesswork.

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?

States a specific resource (all stored comparisons) plus the ordering (oldest first) and content (closeness per stem), which tells an agent this is the historical list rather than a single-run comparison. It stops short of naming how it differs from siblings like cmp_summary or cmp_worst.

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 trailing phrase 'progress over time' hints at the intended use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus cmp_summary, cmp_worst, or cmp_run, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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