compare_versions

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the field-by-field diff behavior, which is consistent with annotations, but it does not disclose behavior for invalid versions or how the diff is structured.

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 packs the action, resource, and result type with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 read-only comparison tool with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description covers the core behavior and return style. It does not specify output structure or invalid-version handling, but these are not heavily needed given the low complexity and the presence of annotations.

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%, so each parameter already has clear meaning: resource_type is an enum, resource_id is a UUID, and version fields specify older/newer. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond this, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb ('Compara') and resource ('duas versões de um recurso'), and specifies the output ('diff campo a campo'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_version (single version retrieval) and list_versions (all versions listing).

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 name and description imply use when comparing two versions, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over get_version or list_versions. No alternatives, exclusions, or preconditions are mentioned.

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