evaluate_diff

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

The description discloses that all 45 judges run on the full file but findings are filtered to changed lines, explaining the underlying behavior. No annotations are provided, so this is valuable context. It does not mention performance implications, but the core pipeline is transparent.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and immediately provides the unique filtering behavior.

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?

Despite 7 parameters and a nested config object, the description explains the core mechanism (full analysis + filter) and mentions 45 judges. No output schema exists, but the description is still informative. A complete outline of the return value is missing but not critical.

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%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond briefly referencing changed lines. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb 'evaluate' and the resource 'changed lines in a code diff', distinguishing it from sibling tools like evaluate_code (which evaluates entire file) and evaluate_git_diff. It specifies the unique filtering behavior.

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 explicitly recommends the tool for 'PR reviews and incremental analysis,' providing clear context for use. It does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the context is sufficient.

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