diff_scope

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well. The critical side effect is explicitly disclosed ('Updates the stored snapshot'), which is exactly the kind of mutating behavior an agent must know about. The only gaps are unspecified first-run behavior (what happens when no snapshot exists yet) and no mention of whether the update overwrites or appends history.

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, zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded, the result type (added/removed/modified assets) follows, and the side effect is stated last. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant information appears first.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, the result shape at a high level, and the side effect. The notable gap is undefined behavior on first invocation when no stored snapshot exists — a real operational question for a stateful diff tool. Explicit routing versus get_program_scope would also strengthen it.

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 the description need not add parameter details — the schema already documents programId as 'The Intigriti program ID or handle.' The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully covers the single parameter.

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+resource combination: fetch a program's current scope, compare against a stored snapshot, and return added/removed/modified assets. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools: get_program_scope (static fetch without diff) and list_programs (enumerate programs). An agent can immediately tell what this tool uniquely does.

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 usage is implied rather than stated: an agent would infer to use this tool when it needs change detection over time. However, there is no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or a pointer to get_program_scope for cases where only the current scope is needed. The sibling distinction is left to inference.

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