compare_plan_to_actual

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no side-effect warning is needed. The description adds context that the comparison is scoped to a date range and uses COROS calendar volume, but it does not disclose details like required authentication or whether an open world means data may be incomplete.

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 front-loaded sentence states the action and scope with no filler or redundant preamble. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 two-parameter read-only tool, the description is mostly adequate, but the lack of an output schema makes the missing description of the comparison result and the missing date format a real gap. An agent could select the tool confidently but may guess wrong on input formatting.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only string type in the schema, the description needed to provide date format and meaning, but it only says 'selected range.' The names startDate/endDate are fairly self-explanatory, yet the string format and any inclusivity/required semantics are left unspecified.

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 specific action ('Compare planned COROS calendar volume with completed activities') with a clear scope ('by date for a selected range'). This distinguishes it from siblings like compare_activity_history or weekly_training_report, which do not explicitly compare plan vs actual calendar load.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over related siblings such as weekly_training_report, summarize_planned_load, or compare_activity_history. There are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routes, so an agent gets only the general purpose to infer usage.

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