find_differences

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool is 'useful for pattern analysis' but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: what format the differences are returned in (array of numbers?), whether the input sequence must be numeric (schema allows strings), what happens with invalid inputs, or any limitations. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences and a parenthetical. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage context, and the parenthetical adds domain information. No wasted words, though it could be more front-loaded with critical details about parameter expectations.

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, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how differences are calculated (subtraction? absolute difference?), input requirements, or error handling. For a tool with mathematical operations, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'sequence' but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid sequence (numbers? strings that represent numbers?), expected length, or format. The description adds no parameter details beyond what's implied by the tool name, leaving the single parameter poorly documented.

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 purpose: 'Find the differences between consecutive terms in a sequence.' It specifies the verb ('find') and resource ('differences'), and the parenthetical adds domain context ('arithmetic, general'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'differencing' or 'gap_analysis' that might have overlapping functionality.

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 some usage context with 'Useful for pattern analysis' and domain hints, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (like 'differencing', 'gap_analysis', 'arithmetic_sequence'), there's no guidance on when this specific tool is preferred or what distinguishes it from similar operations.

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