workforce_audit_diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the exact git commands used (`git diff --staged` vs `git diff`), the read-only 'inspection' nature of the operation, and the return behavior including the no-changes message. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a simple audit tool.

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 compact and well-structured with distinct Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with a single optional boolean parameter and an output schema available. The description covers what the tool does, how the parameter behaves, and what it returns, including the no-changes case. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The schema provides only a boolean `staged` with a default, but the description fully explains both parameter states: True inspects staged changes, otherwise unstaged modifications. It even names the precise git command each state triggers, which is more than sufficient despite 0% schema description coverage.

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 and resource: 'Execute a git diff inspection across the workspace to audit worker modifications.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and differentiates it from the sibling worker tools by focusing on diff auditing.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: auditing worker modifications via git diff. It also explains the staged vs. unstaged distinction, giving an agent enough context to invoke it appropriately, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to siblings.

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