team_compare

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the default comparison behavior and the dimensions examined, but never states that this is a read-only operation, whether it needs specific permissions, or any rate/cost characteristics. Return values are covered by the output schema, so the remaining gap is the safety/operational profile.

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 tight sentences with no waste, and the core purpose plus the default behavior are front-loaded. Efficient and appropriately sized.

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?

The output schema covers return values and the description covers purpose and default, but with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, the mapping of session_id/against/workspace_path is left unexplained. Adequate for the goal but incomplete for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must explain the three parameters. It implies two session identifiers ('compare two team sessions', 'defaults to the two most recent'), but never distinguishes what session_id vs against mean or that workspace_path is required, leaving the actual parameter semantics to inference.

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 resource (two team sessions), then enumerates exactly what is compared: status change, resolved/new blockers, approvals, and proposal diff. That is well beyond tautology and clearly distinct from siblings like team_status or team_transcript, though it doesn't name those alternatives explicitly.

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 gives a useful default ('the two most recent sessions'), implying usage without providing the compared sessions. However, it never says when to use this over team_transcript or team_status, nor any prerequisites, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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