compare_runs

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes the input source and general comparison purpose, but it does not explain whether the tool is read-only, whether it writes the html_out file, what side effects exist, or what kind of result is returned. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately adds the key input constraint. Every part earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 description is minimally viable: an agent can infer that run_a and run_b should come from run_eval json_out outputs and that comparison is the goal. However, optional parameters like labels and html_out remain unexplained, and there is no behavioral detail about the comparison output or side effects, leaving clear gaps.

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, but it only implies that run_a and run_b correspond to run_eval json_out outputs. It adds no meaning for labels or html_out, and does not clarify whether the parameters are file paths, JSON strings, or something else.

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 a specific action ('compare two run results') and the resource being compared, with two concrete use cases: competitor comparison and version regression. It also ties the tool to run_eval by specifying the input is run_eval's json_out output, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 useful context for when to use the tool: after run_eval produces json_out, and for competitor comparison or version-regression analysis. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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