graph_diff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool shows changes and returns a serialized graph diff but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or if there are any side effects, rate limits, or authorization requirements.

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?

Three sentences with no redundant information. The description front-loads the core functionality and then provides usage guidance, making it efficient 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, return type, and usage context. It could be slightly enhanced by describing the output structure, but overall sufficient.

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?

The input schema has one parameter with a detailed description explaining the format (e.g., '24h', '7d', ISO timestamp). Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by clarifying acceptable values, justifying a score above baseline 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 shows changes in the memory graph, specifying added nodes, updated nodes, created edges, and contradiction edges. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_graph or get_stats.

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?

Explicitly recommends use 'for review or handoff,' providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention specific alternatives.

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