compare_flow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral boundary (structural/status comparison rather than image verdict), but says nothing about how missing revisions are handled or what the comparison output looks like.

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?

Two short sentences with the core scope front-loaded and the disambiguating caveat second; no filler or repetition.

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 6-parameter comparison tool with no output schema, the description should explain the two optional *Run parameters and give some sense of the returned diff. It partially covers the return nature ('structural/status comparison') but leaves the extra parameters and result shape unaddressed.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. 'Two exact revisions' weakly implies before/after are full revision identifiers, but flow, project, beforeRun and afterRun are never explained, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb (Compare) and a clear scope (two exact revisions), and rules out one adjacent capability by saying it is 'not an aesthetic image verdict', which routes the agent away from get_evidence_image/get_ui_impact. The resource wording ('contracts and evidence') is jargon that never maps explicitly to flows/projects, so it is clear but not perfectly crisp.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'for two exact revisions' tells the agent the required inputs but not when to prefer this over get_change_evidence, get_flow_evidence, or get_flow. The one negative exclusion ('not an aesthetic image verdict') is a partial when-not, so guidance exists but is thin.

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