diff_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that diffs are deterministic and ignore formatting-only changes, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what the output structure looks like, or any side effects or prerequisites. This is partial disclosure; a more complete description would note the tool's non-mutating nature and return format.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a concise behavioral detail. There is no redundant or filler language. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the diff output looks like or how to use version vs snapshot parameters. It mentions both, but does not clarify the output format or any nuances about using versions versus snapshots. The description is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to know exactly what to expect from the call.

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 7 parameters have schema descriptions with 100% coverage, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description mentions comparing versions and snapshots, which aligns with the fromVersion/toVersion and fromSnapshotId/toSnapshotId parameters, but it does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema covers the parameters thoroughly.

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 tool's function: it compares documentation snapshots and versions to detect specific types of changes (added, removed, modified, deprecated) across API endpoints, parameters, pitfalls, and content sections. It also notes the deterministic output, which distinguishes it from vague 'compare' tools. The verb 'compare' and resource 'documentation snapshots and versions' are specific and unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this diffing tool is preferred over others like get_doc or search_docs. The agent is left to infer usage from the description alone.

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