compare

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool retrieves matching passages and produces unified diffs, which indicates a read-oriented operation, but it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or how it handles missing documents or edge cases. The disclosure is useful but minimal.

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 compact sentence that conveys the core functionality with zero unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks usage context, parameter explanations, output structure details, and how it differs from sibling tools. For an agent to invoke the tool correctly, significantly more context is needed.

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%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It only alludes to 'two documents' without defining query, top_k, or how left_document_id and right_document_id map. The parameter names in the schema are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds little semantic value beyond what the schema already implies.

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 tool compares two documents by retrieving matching passages and returning aligned unified diffs. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like search, grep, and read, which focus on searching or reading rather than multi-document comparison.

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 used for comparing two documents, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives such as search or grep, nor does it provide exclusions or context about when not to use it. The intended use is clear but not strongly differentiated.

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