Compare Libraries Side-by-Side

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, etc. The description adds that it fetches 'live documentation' and resolves internally, which provides context beyond annotations. Lacks details on how content is selected but sufficient.

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 concise paragraphs: first states core function, second gives usage guidance and alternative. Front-loaded with key action and resource.

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?

No output schema, but description indicates it presents relevant content. Input constraints (2–3 libraries) are clear. Could mention output format but not required. Complete enough for a comparison tool.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds valuable context: clarifies that 'libraries' must be names not IDs, provides exemplars, and explains token defaults and range.

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 compares 2–3 libraries side-by-side by fetching live documentation. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'gt_get_docs' by specifying that this tool is for comparisons, not single library docs.

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 states when to use (e.g., 'X vs Y' questions) and when not to (use gt_get_docs instead). Provides clear guidance on input format (library names not registry IDs).

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