diff_to_text

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. Discloses outputs (tracked-change DOCX, .txt summary) but does not mention side effects, file handling, or permissions. Adequate but lacks depth on behavior.

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?

Well-structured: purpose first, then usage guidelines, then parameter list. Every sentence adds value. No verbosity.

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 complexity of DOCX diffing and presence of output schema, description covers main outputs and auto-generation. Lacks details on limitations (e.g., file size, formatting preservation) but otherwise 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. Lists all 4 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'base_path: Path to the original DOCX.'). Adds meaning beyond schema names.

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?

Description clearly states 'Compare two separate DOCX files and produce a tracked-change DOCX plus a plain-text summary.' It specifies verb, resource, and outputs. Distinguishes from sibling 'generate_change_summary' by contrasting use cases.

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 states when to use: 'Use this when you have two distinct files...' and when not: 'If you have already made tracked edits... use generate_change_summary instead.' Provides clear alternative.

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