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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and 'Read-only' restates it. The valuable addition is the disclosure that secret values are redacted and the exact shape of the three returned content sides – behavior not derivable from annotations or schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents and followed by usage guidance; nothing superfluous. 'Read-only' is mildly redundant with the annotation, which keeps it just shy of perfect.

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, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so by naming git_content, cluster_content, and base_content plus redaction. A note on ordering or size limits is absent, but for a read-only single-resource diff tool it is essentially complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (cluster_id, resource_key) are already documented, including the example resource-key format and the cluster-scope note. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 specific verb (Show) and resource (stored diff sides for one conflicting resource) and enumerates the three returned fields. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the plural list_gitops_conflicts by scoping to 'one conflicting resource', though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use context ('use this to compare the sides and explain what diverged before recommending a resolution'), which positions it ahead of a resolution step. It stops short of naming resolve_gitops_conflict or list_gitops_conflicts as the alternatives, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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