compare_tokens

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

With no annotations, the description bears full behavioral transparency burden. It clearly describes what the tool does (compares token usage) but does not detail how tokens are counted or if there are any side effects. The behavior is straightforward and non-destructive, so transparency is high.

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 consists of two sentences, each essential. The first states the core function; the second adds critical context. No superfluous content. Perfectly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple (4 params, no output schema). The description explains the main output (which program uses fewer tokens and by how much) but lacks specifics on the exact format (e.g., token counts, percentage). Close to complete but leaves a minor gap for output details.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation of the parameters (command_a, command_b, upstream, base_url_env). It fails to clarify how programs are specified or the role of optional parameters, leaving the agent without necessary semantic guidance.

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's verb (measure/compare) and resource (token use of two programs). It distinguishes it from siblings like 'compare_energy' and 'verify_equivalence' by focusing on token comparison.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool (to compare token usage) and provides a critical precondition: programs must produce equivalent results. It warns against using it when results are not equivalent and hints at using 'verify_equivalence' separately.

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