coeus_content_comparison

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does but does not describe side effects, return shapes, failure modes, or the meaning of the output_format and include_metrics parameters, leaving the agent to guess behavioral expectations.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that names the action and resource immediately, with zero filler. It is appropriately sized for the simple purpose it conveys, and every word contributes to meaning.

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 annotations, no output schema, six parameters, and numerous sibling tools, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits input formats for sources, output behavior, and when to prefer this tool over comparable siblings, leaving important operational gaps.

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 baseline baseline is 3. However, the schema descriptions are mostly tautological labels like "Model", "Sources" and "Output format". The description does add effective semantics for comparison_type by listing semantic, structural, factual, and code modes, but it does not clarify what values "sources" or "focus_areas" should take.

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" and the resource "multiple sources", and enumerates four comparison modes: semantic, structural, factual, or as code. It is not a tautology, but it does not name or differentiate itself from sibling comparison/review tools like coeus_multi_model_verify or coeus_review_code.

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 conveys an implied use case (comparing sources), but provides no explicit context about when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. There is no guidance distinguishing it from similar sibling tools.

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