get_diff

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. It only says the diff is 'structured' and does not explain what that structure contains (e.g., changed files, hunks, metadata), whether the base and head revisions need to be ordered, or any operational constraints such as size limits or error behavior when revisions are missing.

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, making it very concise. It earns a 4 because while it is structurally efficient, it is so minimal that it omits relevant details an agent would rely on, stopping it from being a masterclass of an effective description.

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 a large set of sibling tools with nearly overlapping purposes, a single-sentence description is too thin. The agent is left without critical information about the return shape, parameter constraints, precise revision semantics, or any discrimination from other tools in the workspace, so it is not complete for practical selection and invocation.

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 given as what is effectively 0%, and the description does not compensate. The terms 'project_id', 'base_revision', and 'head_revision' are used verbatim, but no format, unit, or semantic details are provided (e.g., what type of revision identifier is expected, whether a hash or change number, and how the project id relates to other APIs).

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a resource ('structured diff between two revisions in a project'), clearly indicating the tool's core function. It remains distinguishable from siblings like get_file_patch, get_revision, or get_history, but it doesn't explicitly highlight how it differs from them or detail what the structured diff looks like.

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 explicit usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_file_patch, get_revision), nor does it mention when not to use it. The only implied usage comes from the phrase 'between two revisions', but this is not enough for an agent to decide reliably among the many sibling tools.

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