sibling_compare

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It does disclose an important behavioral boundary by stating that it returns 'differences as facts only' and 'does not rank anomalies or issue verdicts.' However, it does not clarify side effects, permissions, pagination behavior, or what the output actually looks like.

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 two clean sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds a meaningful behavioral boundary without redundancy or ambiguity.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, five parameters, and an unexplained 'call_offset', the description is not sufficient for an agent to understand the full call contract. The description says what the tool does at a conceptual level but leaves important execution semantics unspecified.

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?

Only the 'format' parameter has schema-level documentation, and the description adds no direct details for 'symbol', 'limit', 'offset', or 'call_offset'. The phrase 'Compare structurally similar callables' faintly implies that 'symbol' identifies a callable, but that is too indirect to compensate for the 20% schema description coverage.

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 a concrete verb ('Compare'), a specific resource ('structurally similar callables'), and the comparison dimensions ('by callees and control structure'). The second sentence clarifies the output scope, which helps an agent distinguish it from other analysis tools.

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 implies when this tool is useful: when you want factual differences between similar callables. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance beyond saying it does not rank or issue verdicts.

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