compare_trees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'showing differences' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, error handling, or any side effects. This is minimal transparency for a tool with no annotation support.

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 sentence with no superfluous words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Perfectly concise and efficiently structured.

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 is adequately complete for a simple tool: parameters are fully covered by schema, and the output is stated as 'showing differences in allocated nodes'. However, it lacks behavioral details like error conditions or result format, and the lack of an output schema puts some burden on the description.

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 schema fully covers both parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond naming the two builds, and the schema already explains 'build1' and 'build2' as file names.

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's function: comparing passive skill trees between two builds and showing differences in allocated nodes. The verb 'compare' is specific and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from the broader sibling 'compare_builds'.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, but the description implies usage for comparing passive skill trees specifically. Without exclusions or alternative references, the agent may not know when to choose this over 'compare_builds'.

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