Compare Visual States

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the comparison is both visual and structural, producing key-level JSON diffs, which clarifies the output format and the dual nature of the comparison.

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 sentence of 12 words, placing the verb and resource first. It is concise with no redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no nested objects) and annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. However, the absence of an output schema means the description should clarify the return format further, especially what 'visually' entails.

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?

Two parameters have basic descriptions in the schema, but the response_format parameter is not described beyond its enum. The description does not add meaning to the parameters, leaving the distinction between 'compact' and 'full' unclear.

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 compares two states, with the specific scope 'visually and structurally' and mentions key-level JSON diffs, which distinguishes it from generic 'diff' tools. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or differentiate itself from diff_visual_snapshots, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 the tool is for comparing two states, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives like diff_visual_snapshots or get_visual_diff. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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