compare_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the return format ('Side-by-side results from both projects') and the default for top_k, but does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., projects must be indexed), read-only nature, or potential limitations. This is adequate for a search tool but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-line purpose, followed by a brief use-case sentence, then structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the formatting is clean and scannable without unnecessary verbosity.

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 the presence of an output schema and moderate complexity (4 scalar parameters), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return format. A small gap is the lack of explanation about how results are ordered or what 'side-by-side' entails beyond a list, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the 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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter in the Args section. For query, it gives a concrete example; for project_a and project_b, it clarifies their roles; for top_k, it specifies the default. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool searches for the same concept in two projects side by side, which is a specific verb (search) and resource (two projects). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that search within a single project (search_code, search_docs) by emphasizing the comparative, side-by-side nature across two projects.

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 explains it is 'useful for comparing implementations across two versions or variants of the same project,' giving a clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient given the sibling tool names.

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