compare_reports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the diffing operation but does not mention what happens on missing files, output format, size limits, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 a single concise sentence of 13 words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could include a bit more detail without becoming overly verbose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of the return format, error handling, and any practical usage context that would help an agent invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the two parameters as baseline and candidate, but adds no additional detail about file paths, formats, or constraints. The titles are somewhat self-explanatory, but more context would be helpful.

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 diffs two MT5 tester HTML reports key-by-key with absolute and percent deltas. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_tester_report.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implied for comparing reports, there is no mention of prerequisites or context such as needing to read individual reports first.

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