crosspad_repo_diff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by characterizing it as an inspection command. The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotation: it enumerates exactly what information is surfaced (commits ahead/behind, changed files, uncommitted work) and orients it to dev-mode inspection, giving the agent a clear picture of the tool's read-only scope.

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 covering purpose and usage, front-loaded with the action verb and resource. Every phrase earns its place — no filler or redundancy. Slightly more verbose than the minimal ideal but focused and well-structured.

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 has an output schema that handles return-value documentation, and both parameters are fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description effectively fills the gap for a read-only inspection tool: it states the scope (parent repos, submodules), the outputs (drift metrics), and the use case. For a tool of this modest complexity, the combination of description plus annotations plus schema is complete.

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 100%, with both parent and submodule having enum definitions and descriptive text. The tool description adds context ('parent repo', 'submodule', 'commits ahead/behind pinned') that enriches parameter meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself already documents both parameters well. Baseline 3 with marginal added value 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 uses a specific verb ('Show submodule drift'), names the exact resources (parent repos crosspad-pc or platform-idf, submodules crosspad-core, crosspad-gui), and lists concrete outputs (commits ahead/behind, changed files, uncommitted work). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like crosspad_repo_status and crosspad_submodule_update by focusing on drift/inspection.

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 final sentence 'Use to inspect dev-mode work before pinning' gives clear when-to-use context tied to the development workflow. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, but the drift-inspection purpose is reasonably distinguished from siblings within the developer context.

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