normalize_for_diff

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it strips variable-length fields like hashes and timestamps, which are key behavioral traits. It does not mention authorization or side effects, but for a snapshot function this is sufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The purpose and behavior are front-loaded and clear.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality. However, it does not specify the output format or structure of the snapshot, which would help an agent interpret the result. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema has one parameter 'path' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'path' refers to (e.g., file path, binary path) or any constraints. Schema coverage is low, and description should compensate but fails to add meaning.

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 it returns a structural snapshot for diffing binaries, explaining what it strips (variable-length fields) and what it keeps. This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_sections' or 'extract_strings'.

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 implies usage for diffing two binaries by normalizing them. It does not explicitly state when not to use or point to alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes its use case clear.

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