Cmp Sections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and it delivers almost nothing. It implies a read-only analysis result, but never states that, nor what 'metrics' are computed, how they relate to the reference, or what happens with the default stem='mix'. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, it is terse to the point of being uninformative rather than genuinely concise — the brevity comes from omitting content, not from editing it down.

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 described, but everything else is missing: no annotations, no parameter documentation, and no differentiation from the crowded cmp_* family. An agent cannot confidently select or invoke this tool from the description alone.

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%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters and does not. 'one stem' loosely maps to the stem parameter (which silently defaults to 'mix'), but id and project are never explained, and no format, valid values, or defaults are given.

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 sentence names no verb at all — it describes a return value ('metrics per reference section') rather than an action, leaving the agent to guess that this computes or fetches comparison metrics. 'Metrics' and 'reference section' are undefined jargon, and the phrasing gives no way to tell it apart from cmp_bars, cmp_summary, or cmp_zoom in the sibling set.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool despite a dense cluster of cmp_* siblings that clearly overlap. The agent is left entirely on its own to decide whether cmp_sections or cmp_bars is the right call.

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