diff_content_trees

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuinely new context: it operates 'WITHOUT loading the editor', uses size plus optional MD5, and can accept either disk dirs or /Game|/Engine mount paths. It discloses the comparison method, which the annotations do not.

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?

Front-loads the core action and scope, then scenarios, then the return shape. Dense but every sentence carries information; the Returns block is warranted given no output schema. Slightly packed, but nothing is wasted.

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 3-param read-only diff with no output schema, the description fully specifies input acceptance (disk vs mount path), comparison semantics, and an explicit return-shape listing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by clarifying tree semantics ('disk directory OR a /Game|/Engine mount path') and summarizing the hash behavior (size plus optional whole-file MD5) that the schema also documents.

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?

States a specific verb (Compare) and resource (two Content folders), names the report contents (added/removed/changed keyed by relative path), and differentiates itself from asset/blueprint diffs by scope. An agent can immediately tell this operates on folder trees rather than a single asset or blueprint.

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?

'Verifies a Migrate or audits a fork on disk' and 'project vs external, fork vs source' give clear intended contexts. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative (e.g. audit_fork_refs, compare_asset_versions) or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of the when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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