diff_circuit

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds specific behavioral detail about what the diff reports (components, attributes, directives), going beyond annotations to clarify the tool's scope and output.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second when to use it.

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?

The tool is a diff, and the description covers the main diff categories (components, attributes, directives). No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains what the output contains. Could optionally mention format choices, but the schema covers that.

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 all parameters are already described. The description does not add new parameter-level detail, but this is acceptable as the schema already provides sufficient description (path_a, path_b, format). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 performs a 'structural diff between two circuit files' and lists specific reported changes (added/removed components, changed attributes, directives). This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools, none of which offer diff functionality.

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 recommends use after specific mutation tools (set_component_value, set_component_attribute, edit_directive) to verify changes landed. This provides clear context and intended use case, effectively guiding the agent.

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