analyze_diff

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

With no annotations provided, the description excels by covering side effects (read-only, no external modifications), authentication (none for basic, API key for pro), rate limits (10/day free, unlimited pro with header details), error handling (structured errors), idempotency (fully idempotent), and data privacy (no storage/logging). This is exceptionally thorough.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Behavior, When to use, When NOT to use, Args, Behavioral Transparency). The purpose is front-loaded. However, there is some redundancy between the 'Behavior' and 'Behavioral Transparency' sections, making it slightly less concise than ideal.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, 1 required), the presence of an output schema (so return values are covered), and the comprehensive behavioral transparency section, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, side effects, auth, rate limits, error handling, idempotency, and privacy, leaving no major gaps.

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 the description must compensate. It lists parameters in the 'Args' section but only repeats names and types without adding meaningful semantics. The main description clarifies diff_text's purpose, and api_key is partly explained in the Behavioral Transparency section. Overall, compensation is partial but not complete, warranting a 3.

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 it parses a git diff and produces a structured summary with specific outputs (files changed, additions, deletions, suggested commit type). The 'When to use' section is generic and does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like suggest_type, which also deals with commit types, but the main purpose is well-defined with a specific verb and resource.

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 includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, providing guidance on appropriate contexts and cautioning against real-time production use without human review. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so a 4 is appropriate.

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