diffci_check

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: no report is uploaded, telemetry is aggregate and consent-gated, and DIFFCI_NO_SEND=1 overrides it. It is silent on the operational side effects of executing test commands (working-tree writes, runtime cost, failure handling), which matters for a tool that runs commands.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the action and follow with privacy constraints; nothing is padded. The privacy sentences are dense but each carries distinct information (no upload, consent-gated telemetry, env override).

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?

For a six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and privacy but omits what the 'paired runtime' report contains and how command execution failures surface. The agent has enough to call it, but not enough to predict its output or side effects confidently.

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%, so all six parameters (base, head, json, quiet, redactPaths, repo) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about defaults or interactions between them, so the baseline 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?

States a concrete verb chain (analyze repo, run inferred full and selected test commands, report paired runtime), which is specific enough for an agent to know what it produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like diffci_run_affected_tests or diffci_verify, which plausibly also run tests.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling tools it competes with. 'When available' hints at a fallback behavior for test command inference, but nothing tells the agent why to pick this over diffci_run_affected_tests or diffci_verify.

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