groove_compare

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

The description explicitly states 'Side effects: none; this is an offline deterministic read', which fully clarifies behavior. It also notes that 'incompatible projection sets remain explicit in compatibility', adding useful behavioral context about error handling. With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well, though it doesn't detail output format or error specifics.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes an example and edge case note without excessive verbosity. The side effect statement is brief, and every sentence serves a purpose, though the example could be considered slightly redundant given the schema.

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 that the tool has 4 parameters (3 required) with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the required parameters, their expected formats, or what the comparison returns. The mention of compatibility is helpful but not sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters, the description provides no information about parameter semantics. The example shows two parameters but doesn't explain the meaning, constraints, or usage of 'schema_version', 'normalize', or the exact format of 'metrics' and 'artifact_ids'. The schema itself is underspecified, and the description does not compensate.

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 verb and resource: 'Compare bounded cards and projections'. This is clearly distinct from siblings like groove_search, groove_generate, and groove_apply. The concept of 'bounded cards and projections' is somewhat jargon-heavy but sufficiently specific to identify the operation.

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 description provides an example and mentions handling incompatible projection sets, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like groove_search (retrieval) or groove_evidence (evidence gathering). Usage context is implied through the operation type, but explicit guidelines are absent.

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