compare_capsules

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 does add one useful constraint ('does not infer causality'), which is genuinely informative about output interpretation. However, it doesn't explain what the structured difference contains, whether this is a read-only operation, what format the comparison takes, or any side effects—leaving the agent with limited behavioral understanding for a comparison tool.

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 extremely brief at one short sentence, which is genuinely concise. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete—this teeters between concise and insufficient. The fact that it contains no redundant filler earns some credit, but the brevity comes at the cost of essential 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?

For a tool with 2 string parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides almost no context. The agent cannot determine what input format to supply, what the comparison output looks like, or how this differs from inspecting capsules individually. Among seven siblings with varied investigative functions, this level of description is severely inadequate.

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 must compensate entirely. Neither parameter (capsule_a, capsule_b) is explained in the description beyond the generic inference from their names and types. There is no note on what format the capsule identifiers take (ID string, path, URL?), whether order matters, or whether they refer to specific version tags. Two fully undocumented parameters at 0% coverage require substantial compensation.

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 says 'Structured difference between two capsule versions' which clarifies the verb (compare) and resource (capsules), but it reads more like a restatement of the tool name 'compare_capsules' rather than adding new specificity. It's not entirely tautological, but it adds minimal differentiation from siblings like find_related_capsules or drill_down.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The single sentence provides no context about which scenarios call for comparing capsule versions, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The phrase 'does not infer causality' hints at one limitation but doesn't explain when it WOULD be the right choice among the prominent sibling tools.

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