slide_comparison

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It conveys that the tool performs a comparison and returns a sliding distance, but it does not disclose output units, return format, error behavior, or edge-case limitations. The behavior is minimally transparent but not detailed.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and immediately states 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 simple two-parameter tool with fully described inputs, the description is mostly adequate. However, the lack of an output schema makes the absence of an explicit return-value description noticeable, and the lack of differentiation from `slide_match` leaves some selection ambiguity.

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 100%, and the parameter descriptions already explain which image is the target and which is the background. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond restating that two images are involved.

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 action ('Compare two images') and the goal ('find the sliding distance'), and the captcha-solving context gives it a specific purpose. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool `slide_match`, whose name suggests a nearly identical operation.

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 phrase 'for captcha solving' implies a use context, so an agent gets some situational signal. But the description gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like `slide_match`, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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