Cmp Summary

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. It implies a read-only summary but never states that explicitly, nor does it disclose permission requirements, whether anything is mutated, or what the baselines represent.

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 key noun phrase front-loaded and no filler. It is dense but appropriately sized for the operation.

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 with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage the description leaves behavioral and parameter gaps. The baseline terms 'ceiling/floor' are undefined, so an agent lacks context to interpret the summary.

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% for 2 parameters. The '(default latest)' clause adds meaning for the id parameter, but the required project parameter is entirely unaddressed in the description, leaving the coverage gap only partially compensated.

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 and operation: a summary of a stored comparison, scoped to per-stem metrics against ceiling/floor baselines. It is distinguishable from sibling list/view tools (cmp_list, cmp_sections), though the jargon-heavy phrasing leaves the exact output shape unclear without the 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?

The only guidance is the parenthetical '(default latest)', which concerns parameter defaults rather than when to use this tool over alternatives. No when-to-use condition or named alternative (e.g., cmp_list, cmp_worst) is provided.

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