project_diff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose what the tool analyzes (file changes, IL text diffs, config/index changes), which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies anything, what output format is returned, or any performance/availability considerations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then enumerates the diff categories. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 has only two required string parameters and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job of stating what the comparison covers. It lists the diff categories, which gives an agent expectations about the result. A small gap remains: it does not describe the exact output format or any error conditions, but this is acceptable for a focused comparison tool.

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 100%, and both parameters (before, after) are documented as old and new project directories. The description reinforces that these are directories to compare, but adds no detail beyond the schema about expected formats, path types, or constraints.

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 uses a specific verb ('对比' / compare), names the resource ('两个工程目录' / two project directories), and lists concrete comparison dimensions: added/deleted/modified files, IL text diff, and config/index changes. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like project_inspect or il_read, which are about inspecting a single project or reading IL rather than computing a 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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer to use this tool when needing to compare two project directories. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites such as requiring both directories to exist or be valid project layouts.

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