compare_contam_sim_results

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 fails to specify whether the comparison is destructive, what output format to expect, performance characteristics, or what 'simcomp' specifically analyzes (e.g., numerical differences, file structure).

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 single-sentence structure is appropriately front-loaded, though slightly verbose with the phrase 'when you want to' rather than a direct imperative. No redundant information is present, but the sentence could be more direct.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is inadequate. It omits critical context such as the comparison methodology, output format, and semantics for the optional verbosity and timeout parameters.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. While 'two CONTAM .sim result files' implies the purpose of firstSimPath and secondSimPath, it provides no information about verbosity (range 0-3) or timeoutSeconds (range 1-600), leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 CONTAM .sim result files' using 'simcomp', providing specific verb, resource, and method. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like run_contam_simulation or export_contam_sim_text by focusing on result comparison rather than generation or export.

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 phrase 'Use this when you want to compare' provides a basic when-to-use signal, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, prerequisites (e.g., files must exist), or named alternatives for different comparison scenarios.

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