compare-sessions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication. The description only covers purpose, not side effects or constraints.

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 that encapsulates the core purpose without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. Slightly more structure (e.g., listing outputs) could improve scannability.

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, the description provides a reasonable overview of expected returns (common content, unique messages, differences). It covers the main aspects but could be more detailed about the format or limitations. For a comparison tool with 3 simple parameters, it is mostly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters adequately. The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema, but the parameter descriptions are clear. Description mentions output aspects but not parameter usage details.

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 action (compare), the resource (two sessions), and the specific outputs (common content, unique messages, differences in topics/technologies). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cluster-sessions or get-similar-sessions by specifying the exact comparative analysis.

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 when to use (when needing to compare sessions), but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Without explicit guidance, the agent must infer usage context.

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