Generate a horizontal comparison of parallel conversation branches, writing results to COMPARE.md without altering the main branch. Helps evaluate A/B alternatives before promoting or discarding.
生成多分支横向对比（写入 COMPARE.md，不改主线）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | Yes | Conversation Branch 工作区根目录 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it writes to COMPARE.md (a concrete side effect) and explicitly states it does not modify the mainline. This gives the agent a clearer picture of the operation's scope and safety.
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 that front-loads the action (generate multi-branch comparison) and immediately includes the key side effects (writes COMPARE.md, does not modify mainline). Every word earns its place; there is zero 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?
For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and helpful annotations, the description covers the core function and main side effect. However, it lacks details on what the comparison actually entails (e.g., which branches are compared, what '横向对比' produces), prerequisites, or how the result is structured. It is adequate for a simple tool but not comprehensive.
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?
The input schema already provides a description for the only parameter 'root' with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate—the schema carries the full burden here.
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 states a clear action ('生成' generate) and a resource (multi-branch horizontal comparison), with a specific output file (COMPARE.md). It is not a tautology and implies a distinct purpose from simple diff tools by emphasizing '多分支' (multi-branch). However, it does not explicitly name a sibling tool, so differentiation is left to inference.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cb_diff or cb_branch. The phrase '不改主线' (does not modify mainline) is a safety constraint, not a usage directive. There are no exclusions or conditions that would help an agent select this tool appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.