compare_tunes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so "never write a tune" largely restates structured data. The clause about matching firmware signatures and shared units does add useful scope context, but nothing is said about what happens on mismatched signatures or how errors surface.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the core action and ends with the key safety constraint. No 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a tool whose only inputs are two undocumented required strings, the description leaves the most call-critical detail — what left and right actually are — entirely 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% and the two required parameters are bare strings named "left" and "right" with no titles or descriptions. The description never explains what a left/right argument should contain (a tune ID? an MSQ file path?), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specific resource ("raw MSQ constants with matching firmware signatures and shared units"), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like inspect_tune and summarize_log. The jargon is dense but the operation is unambiguous.

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 says what the tool does but never states when to choose it over inspect_tune, capabilities, or summarize_log. There is no exclusion or prerequisite guidance; the agent must infer that comparison implies this tool.

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