pol_diff

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

No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. It only describes the output, leaving behavioral aspects unclear.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the purpose, specifics of what is shown, a use case, and parameter details in a few short sentences. No unnecessary words.

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 output schema, the description's return explanation ('Diff showing what changed') is vague. It does not describe the format or structure of the diff, leaving the agent to guess. Additional detail on the return type would improve completeness.

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 0% parameter description coverage, but the description adds meaning by specifying that result_a and result_b are paths to result JSON files. This context is valuable and goes beyond the schema's bare type information.

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 compares two check runs to show changes, including checksums, status, and step-level differences. It differentiates from siblings like pol_check (single check) and pol_report (reporting) by focusing on infrastructure drift tracking.

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 tracking infrastructure drift but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools are not mentioned or contrasted.

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