diff_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses operation types and unified diff format, but does not explicitly state the tool is read-only or describe return structure/edge cases. It adds some behavioral context but lacks full disclosure.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then enumerating operations without fluff. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 tool has multiple parameters and no output schema, so the description needs to convey behavior well. It covers the main operations and output format hint, but does not detail return values or error conditions. Given the tool's complexity, it is reasonably complete, though a note on return format would make it fully 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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what each operation enum value means (e.g., 'files' means line-by-line diff, 'quick' means fast identical check) and that 'unified' outputs unified diff format. This enriches the schema descriptions beyond simple labels.

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 compares files and directories, then enumerates specific operations (files, dirs, stat, quick) with brief explanations. This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like efs_edit or efs_list, which perform different functions.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (whenever you need to compare files/directories) and lists sub-operations that guide selection. While it does not name alternative tools, the operations are self-explanatory enough to imply usage, meeting the 'clear context, no exclusions' criterion.

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