container_diff

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

Description goes beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) by detailing that only the writable layer is compared, and describes the return format (list of dicts with Path and Kind). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Description is concise (5 sentences) and well-structured: purpose first, then usage context, limitations, and parameter info. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simple tool with one parameter and annotations present, the description covers purpose, usage, limitations, and return format completely. No output schema is needed.

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 single parameter 'id_or_name' is described as 'The container id or name', which adds basic meaning beyond the schema (type string). However, given low schema coverage (0%), the description only minimally compensates; no examples or additional constraints are provided.

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 'List filesystem changes a container has made relative to its image', a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like container_commit and container_archive_get by explicitly stating its usage context.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use it to audit what a container wrote before container_commit or container_archive_get, or to debug unexpected writes.' Also clarifies what it does not cover: 'files in volumes and bind mounts never show up.'

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