project_diff

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

The description aligns with readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and adds value by specifying the exact comparison (pending edits vs loaded project) and diff format (unified CXT). It does not contradict annotations, though it omits error or edge-case 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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 read-only diff tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks explicit usage context like 'inspect before save_cxt,' but the core behavior is fully scoped.

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%, and the description does not mention project_id or context_lines. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'Show' and names the resource: a unified CXT diff comparing pending edits to the loaded project. This clearly differentiates it from sibling save/load/edit tools as a read-only preview.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like save_cxt, semantic_snapshot, or validate_program. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or suggested call contexts.

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