emulator_build_pair_diffs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Rebuild' implies overwriting existing crop diffs and contact sheets, but the description doesn't state whether existing files are overwritten, what canonical means in this context, or whether this mutates any persistent state. For a tool that regenerates artifacts, these behavioral details are notably absent.

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?

A single sentence that conveys the tool's purpose efficiently. Zero waste, no filler, front-loaded with the primary action. Very effective.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description carries significant weight. For a tool that rebuilds artifacts (implying potentially long-running or mutating operations), key contextual details are missing: what outputs are produced, where they're written, whether it's idempotent, and how it relates to emulator_build_pair_contact_sheet. The single-sentence description leaves substantial gaps for an agent to operate confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The single parameter 'pair_summary_path' is contextually implied to be a JSON file path, and the description references it directly. However, no additional detail is given about expected format, relative vs absolute paths, or file location conventions. The baseline for 1 simple param with 0% coverage is moderate; this is adequate but not enriching.

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 action ('Rebuild canonical crop diffs and the contact sheet') and the specific input ('existing pair_summary.json'). It's a specific verb+resource combo that distinguishes this from the sibling emulator_build_pair_contact_sheet, which only builds the contact sheet portion. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with that sibling tool.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The existence of emulator_build_pair_contact_sheet as a sibling implies a potential overlap, but the description doesn't clarify when to choose one over the other. It also doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that a pair_summary.json must already exist or how it's created) beyond implying the input must already exist.

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