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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It signals a read-only operation through 'Show' and describes the output semantics (added/removed/changed nodes and edges). While it doesn't cover authentication or rate limits, the non-destructive nature is clear and sufficient for this type of tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core function and followed by a memorable analogy. Every word serves a purpose; no padding or redundancy.

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 explains what the tool returns (structural diff of nodes and edges), when to use it (before shipping), and the parameters are fully documented in the schema. No output schema is present, but the description adequately communicates the return concept for this simple tool.

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% and each parameter is already well-described ('Base version number', 'Target version number', 'The flow id'). The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond the metaphor, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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: 'Show the structural diff between two versions of a version-controlled flow: which nodes and edges were added, removed, or changed.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like import_flow or test_flow.

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 a use case ('see exactly what a change did before you ship it') but does not explicitly compare to alternatives such as test_flow or import_flow. No when-not-to-use guidance is given, making the usage context 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.