doc_diff_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, mutates data, requires permissions, or has rate limits. 'Render two DOCX versions' suggests a read operation, but there is no explicit statement about behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 a single sentence that fronts the main action and diff outputs. It is concise and avoids redundancy, but could be improved by structuring with bullet points or clearer separation of actions and outputs.

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 has three parameters (two required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return format, behavior on errors, prerequisites (e.g., document existence), or what 'layout reports' are. The provided detail about diff outputs is helpful but insufficient for full understanding.

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 three parameters ('before', 'after', 'rules') with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter, leaving the agent to infer what 'before' and 'after' refer to (version identifiers?) and what 'rules' controls. This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 renders two DOCX versions and diffs their layout reports, listing specific outputs like resolved/regressed items, page-count delta, and severity count deltas. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'doc_get_page_image'.

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 the tool is for comparing DOCX versions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling tool 'doc_get_page_image' is different, but no direct comparison or when-not-to-use is given.

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