Inspect Changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It explicitly states what the tool returns (created/modified/deleted file lists, insertion/deletion counts, optional unified diff) and mentions an important behavioral detail ('Build output and dependency directories are excluded'). It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, but the language implies a non-destructive inspection, which is transparent enough.

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 exceptionally concise—three sentences that cover purpose, usage guidance, and output/exclusion details. Each sentence serves a distinct informative purpose with no redundancy. The structure flows logically from what it does, to when to use it, to what it returns.

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 (3 parameters, 1 required, output described), the description is fully complete. It states the action, usage context, return format, and a key exclusion (build/dependency directories). There is no missing information that would prevent an agent from using the tool 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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The descriptions are clear: include_diff, experiment_id, and max_files_with_diff are self-explanatory. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither improves nor degrades the baseline.

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 the primary action: showing what the experiment changed relative to the copied project. It also clarifies the scoped perspective ('against the project as it was copied in'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, which would elevate it to a 5.

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 direct usage guidance: 'USE THIS before destroying a sandbox, and before telling the developer what you found.' This gives concrete scenarios when the tool is appropriate. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool recommendation, but the provided triggers are specific and actionable.

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