diff_parses

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it returns a 'structural diff'. It doesn't disclose failure modes, prerequisites (e.g., format must be known), or whether the tool parses from scratch or accepts pre-parsed data.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters with no description, the tool description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of optional parameters, output behavior, or any constraints, making it insufficient for correct agent use.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds no meaning to any of the 4 parameters. The terms format_module and ksy_path are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent unable to determine how to specify the format.

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 parses two files and returns a structural diff, distinguishing it from single-file parsing tools like parse_unityfs. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that the files must have the same format, which is implied but could be clearer.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as parse_with_format for single files or visualize for visualization. No exclusions or context provided.

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