atr_diff

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

While annotations confirm safety (readOnlyHint: true), the description adds critical behavioral details beyond the structured data, such as its output format ('1 line of context') and specific filtering behavior for non-source files ('lockfiles/generated/binary files listed but not shown').

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 extremely concise and efficient. It manages to convey the core function, formatting constraints, and usage context in a single, punchy sentence.

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 the tool's function as a specialized git diff utility, the description is highly complete. It addresses both the functional behavior and the constraints (like context lines and file type filtering).

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?

With 80% schema coverage, the input parameters are mostly well-defined in the schema itself. The description focuses heavily on behavioral context (the diff output style and scope) rather than defining individual parameters.

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 defines the tool's purpose as performing a 'compact git diff'. It distinguishes itself by specifying formatting constraints (1 line of context) and explicitly stating its intended role (Use instead of `git diff`).

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 clear guidance on usage by defining the default state ('Default: uncommitted changes') and explicitly directing the user to replace the standard 'git diff' command with this tool.

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