Compare Versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's behavior is consistent with a read-only comparison. Beyond the annotation, the description discloses the two output modes and their size/behavior trade-off ('full returns the changed entities; flags returns only what changed and how'), plus the project-context prerequisite. This adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states purpose, the second covers the key optional parameter, and the third explains the detail modes and their trade-off. Purpose is front-loaded and there is no redundant repetition of schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (added/removed/modified endpoints and schemas, changed entities vs flags). It also covers defaults, the optional parameter behavior, and the project-context prerequisite. For a read-only comparison tool of this complexity, nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description goes further by explaining the semantic meaning of omitting sourceVersionId (compare against latest published) and the difference between 'full' and 'flags' for detail, which complements the schema's terse field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Compare two specification versions and show their differences: added/removed/modified endpoints and schemas.' This clearly identifies the tool's operation and output, and distinguishes it from siblings like list_versions (listing versions) and get_version (fetching a single version) without needing to open the schema.

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 gives concrete usage context: 'Omit sourceVersionId to compare against the latest published version' and explains when to choose detail 'full' vs 'flags' with the guidance that 'flags' is 'enough to decide where to look.' It also states the prerequisite 'Requires project context.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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