pyp6xer_compare_snapshots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, providing safety. The description adds that it reports changes in specific fields (dates, duration, float, status), which is useful but does not elaborate on behavioral traits like side effects or performance.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds detail and a use case. Well front-loaded and efficient.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers key aspects: what it does and what changes it reports. It could mention the proj_id parameter's role, but schema covers it. Adequate for a moderately complex tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter; it only reinforces the purpose.

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 description uses specific verb 'compare' and resource 'loaded XER files (snapshots)', and details outcomes: 'added, removed, and changed activities' with specific fields. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like critical_path or slipping_activities.

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 implies usage for analyzing schedule updates between periods but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among the many sibling analysis tools. Guidance is only implied.

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