Compare two API specs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool 'does NOT modify code' and 'analyzes API contract compatibility only,' which is consistent but slightly redundant. No contradiction.

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 sentences: first defines the function, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists the output components (breaking changes, additions, modifications, warnings, risk score, compatibility summary). Parameters are well-documented in the input schema. All necessary context is present for correct tool invocation.

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 83% (5 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add any additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not enhance understanding.

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 explicitly states the tool compares two API specs and lists breaking changes, additions, modifications, and warnings with a risk score and compatibility summary. It also distinguishes from sibling tool 'is_change_safe' by noting that for merge/deploy decisions the latter is preferred.

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 provides clear guidance: 'For a merge/deploy decision prefer is_change_safe.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus an alternative, and it also clarifies that the tool analyzes but does not modify code.

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