verify_equivalence

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It explains the comparison logic and input modes. However, it does not disclose that the commands may have arbitrary side effects (destructiveness), which is a notable gap for a tool that executes arbitrary commands.

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?

Four concise, well-structured sentences. Purpose is front-loaded, usage variations are logically separated, and no unnecessary text.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics well. However, it does not describe the return value (e.g., boolean, diff output) despite having no output schema. This is a minor but relevant omission.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It effectively explains the stdin_inputs parameter and its behavior (list of strings fed to stdin, requiring all outputs to match). The command_a and command_b parameters are only implied, but the tool's purpose is clear enough.

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 it runs two commands and compares stdout and exit code. It also distinguishes itself as a gate before energy/token comparisons relative to siblings.

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?

Explicitly positions itself as a preliminary gate before energy/token comparisons. Describes two usage modes (single-input smoke test vs. input battery) and recommends the project's own test suite for stronger evidence.

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