mimicus_compare_references

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description usefully adds output semantics ('no aesthetic winner is inferred'), but for a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation it never explains what side effect is produced or what state it changes, leaving a meaningful gap the annotations don't cover.

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, front-loaded with the core action, with no obvious filler. The second sentence is dense and jargon-heavy but still earns its place by naming the synthesized outputs.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a tool with a complex nested required brief at 0% schema coverage the description is too abstract to guide correct invocation. It leaves the brief's field semantics and the session-count constraints unexplained.

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% and the 'brief' parameter is a nested object with multiple required fields (project, audience, primaryAction, sections). The description gestures at both parameters ('selected open references', 'a project brief') but adds no meaning about the brief's required fields, the 2-3 sessionIds limit, or the anchorSessionId, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specific verb and resource ('Compare selected open references with actual images and measured insights') and adds that a brief synthesizes composition, navigation and motion guidance. It distinguishes the tool from read-only siblings like get_reference or search, though the exact output artifact remains somewhat abstract.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool operates on 'selected open references,' suggesting open_reference must precede it, and a brief is optional ('Supply a project brief to...'). There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no stated prerequisite that references must already be open.

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