u1_diff_profiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Diff' implies a read-only comparison, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, what output it produces, how errors are handled, or whether any state changes occur. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 one short sentence with no filler and opens with the primary verb 'Diff.' It is appropriately compact for the tool's apparent simplicity, though the brevity comes at the cost of meaningful semantic detail.

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 three required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin to fully equip an agent to call the tool correctly. The agent is left to guess what 'resolved profile' means, what values 'kind' accepts, and what kind of diff result to expect.

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%, so the description must compensate for the three undocumented parameters. It implies that 'left' and 'right' are the profiles being compared and that 'kind' must match, but it does not clarify what a 'resolved profile' is, how to reference one, what kinds are valid, or the expected input format. This leaves most parameter meaning unresolved.

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 a specific action—'diff'—and a specific resource—'two resolved profiles of the same kind.' This distinguishes it from profile retrieval (u1_get_profile) and recipe comparison (u1_compare_recipes), though the meaning of 'resolved profiles' is left unexplained.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. The only implied constraint is that both inputs must be the same kind, but there is no explanation of when diffing profiles is preferable to inspecting or comparing recipes, slices, or runs.

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