compare_candidates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating that ranking prioritizes hard DRC and connectivity correctness, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output shape is, or any side effects, leaving noticeable gaps.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the action and criterion, containing no redundant words. It is concise and well-structured for the information it provides.

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 and has an output schema, so return-value details are covered. However, the description lacks context about what fields candidates must contain or how to interpret the ranking, and there are no annotations to fill the gap. It is minimally complete.

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 has a single 'candidates' array with zero description coverage. The description does not explain the structure of each candidate object or any required fields, so it adds little meaning beyond the parameter name itself.

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 uses the verb 'Rank' with the resource 'candidates' and specifies the ranking criterion (hard DRC and connectivity correctness), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like apply_candidate or validate_candidate. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 implies when to use the tool (when comparing candidates) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the name and the ranking statement.

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