compare_admin_rule_old_new

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool displays basic info and a list of changed articles in parallel with change highlighting, and that the mst parameter accepts both old and new versions. However, it omits details on output structure (e.g., data format, fields) and does not explicitly state read-only nature.

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 three sentences covering purpose, functionality, a use case example, and next steps. It is front-loaded and efficient, though includes some technical details (lawService, target) that may be extraneous but do not harm clarity.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides purpose, parameter source, and use case. However, it lacks details on exact output structure (e.g., JSON format, fields), leaving some ambiguity despite referencing 'basic info' and 'changed article list'.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the mst parameter with 100% coverage. The description reinforces that mst comes from search_admin_rule and can be either old or new version, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'compare', the resource 'admin rule old/new', and specifies parallel display of basic info and changed articles with change highlighting. It provides a concrete use case (PIPC revision tracking) and references sibling tools for next steps, distinguishing it from general comparison tools like compare_articles.

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?

It explicitly mentions direct use for tracking PIPC notifications and suggests subsequent tools (get_admin_rule_text, search_admin_rule). However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or contrast with siblings like compare_old_new or compare_articles.

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