compare_runs

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 discloses that the tool returns only differing config keys and deltas on predictive performance and constraint security, which is informative. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only (no destructive side effects), which would be a minor improvement for transparency.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, detailing the output, and providing usage guidance. No extraneous words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (two string parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core functionality and output format. It mentions what is returned (differing config keys, deltas on metrics). However, it could be more complete by describing the return structure (e.g., a JSON object with keys for config and metrics). The lack of output schema makes this gap more noticeable, but the description is still sufficient for an agent.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no property descriptions. The description does not mention the parameter names 'experiment_id_a' and 'experiment_id_b' or explain their format, source, or constraints. While the names are self-explanatory, the description should add detail (e.g., 'unique identifiers for runs') to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'diff' and the resource 'two runs', specifying that it compares configuration and headline metrics. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_results' by mentioning it returns only differing config keys and deltas, making its purpose 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 explicitly advises to prefer this tool over calling 'get_results' twice when the question is about what changed between two runs. This provides a clear usage guideline and directly contrasts with an alternative, helping the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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