aura_inspo_compare

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the burden. It does disclose the return payload ('inspo.compare call + closest Aura system/component queries'), which is useful. But it says nothing about side effects, permissions, or what 'pure'/'no autopsy' operationally restrict.

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?

Compact and roughly front-loaded with the action, but the density of undefined terms ('pure', 'autopsy', 'slim') means the brevity costs clarity rather than earning it.

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 nested-param tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description supplies the field shape and return format, which is meaningful. It still omits side-effect/permission context and leaves core terminology undefined, so completeness is only partial.

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 coverage is 0% and the single evidence param is a bare object array, so the description must compensate — and it does partially by enumerating fields {slug, palette?, fonts?, macrostructure?, mode?} with optional markers. However, the meaning of each field and the 'slim keys only' constraint remain unexplained, leaving semantics incomplete.

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 core action is discernible: comparing 2-4 Inspo sites to derive a 'house style.' However, key terms ('slim', 'pure', 'house style', 'no autopsy', 'triangulate') are internal jargon with no gloss, so an agent cannot be fully confident what the operation yields versus siblings like aura_inspo_system or aura_inspo_recommend.

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 a usage constraint (2-4 sites, slim keys only) but never states when to choose this tool over aura_inspo_system, aura_inspo_recommend, or aura_inspo_reference. No exclusions or alternative routing is given.

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