boardsesh_compare_boards

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses the output shape (one row per board), the key metrics included, and the important nuance that hardest_boardsesh_grade and median_boardsesh_grade are normalised across boards for fair comparison. This gives the agent a clear picture of behavior without needing to infer it.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives trigger examples, then lists output details. Each sentence adds distinct value and nothing is redundant or 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, trigger conditions, output granularity, and the crucial normalisation caveat. There is no missing context that would prevent an agent from invoking it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output semantics instead of input semantics.

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 states a clear, specific action: comparing the user's climbing across all logged boards. It also gives concrete example questions, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like boardsesh_get_summary that focus on a single board or aggregate summary.

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 lists when to use the tool: when the user asks which board they are strongest on, how boards compare, or where they climb most. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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