trw_ordering_compare

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses 'NEVER raises' and 'Tier-gated', which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 three sentences, each adding value: purpose, usage, and traits. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no fluff.

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 explains the output and usage adequately, but fails to cover the input parameters. Given that schema coverage is 0%, this is a notable gap, though the tool is simple and params are optional.

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?

The input schema has two parameters (cache_dir, repo_root) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not mention or clarify these parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 the tool returns a 'RiskOrderingComparison' for the current SHA, and specifies it compares two persisted risk-ordering sidecars. This is specific and distinct from siblings like trw_cross_repo_ordering.

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 explicitly says 'Use when comparing two persisted risk-ordering sidecars', providing clear context. It also mentions 'Tier-gated' and 'NEVER raises', which guide availability and error behavior, though no explicit alternatives are named.

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