text_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that the tool likely requires two text inputs, what happens if inputs are missing, or any side effects. The description is vague about the 'advanced comparison options' and does not specify whether the operation is read-only or destructive.

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 relatively concise but includes redundant phrases like 'Menu ID: diff' and 'Online Diff Tool' that repeat the tool name. The instruction to use describe_tool adds unnecessary length and reliance on another tool. It could be streamlined to focus on behavior and parameters.

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 complexity (diff comparison) and absence of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to provide text inputs, what the output format is, or any constraints. The agent would need to guess or call describe_tool to get sufficient context.

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 no defined parameters (just additionalProperties: true), so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides—it does not hint at expected property names or formats. It would benefit from mentioning that inputs like 'left' and 'right' text are needed.

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: compare text differences with multiple view options (side-by-side, unified, inline). It uses specific verbs ('Compare', 'Find changes') and identifies the resource ('text documents'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like text_find_replace or text_case_converter, which could overlap in finding changes.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or provide any usage context. The only additional instruction is to use describe_tool for full guidance, which shifts the burden to the agent to call another tool first.

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