text_diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states output is 'line by line', which implies a diff presentation, but does not disclose details like case sensitivity, handling of empty strings, or output format. Partial disclosure but leaves gaps.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks structural elements like separating usage notes or parameter details. Efficient but could be slightly more organized.

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 simplicity and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but not complete. Missing details on output format specifics (e.g., unified diff?), size limits, or behavior with identical texts. With no output schema, more context would help.

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% with descriptions for both parameters ('Original text', 'Modified text'). The tool description adds no additional context beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'compare' and resource 'two texts', with specific output 'show the differences line by line'. It immediately distinguishes from sibling tools like text_reverser or text_sorter which do different operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose differentiates it from siblings, there is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or recommended scenarios.

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