compare_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return type but not edge cases (e.g., non-existent users), permissions, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description lacks sufficient detail for an agent to fully anticipate tool behavior.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the purpose and then detailing what the comparison includes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff. Ideal conciseness for this tool.

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?

There is an output schema to document return values, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, the description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., users must exist), error handling, or the scope of data used. Minimal but covers the core functionality.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters user_a and user_b. While the names suggest usernames, the description should confirm this and specify any constraints (e.g., must be valid Codeforces handles). With 0% coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving ambiguity.

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 'Codeforces users', and the scope 'side-by-side' with specific comparison aspects (ratings, titles, contest count, problem solving breakdown). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_user which likely returns individual user data.

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 the tool is for comparing two users, but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives (e.g., get_user for single user details). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The purpose is clear, but a more explicit usage context would improve it.

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