diff_versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the three change categories (added/removed/structurally changed) and mentions optional filters, which clarifies the semantic scope and output content beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('List') and scope ('APIs ... between two retail patches'), with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and optional filters.

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?

While there is no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool returns (a list of changes categorized as added, removed, or structurally changed). Parameters and safety are well covered by the schema and annotations, leaving only minor ambiguity about the exact output structure.

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 100%, so each parameter already has its own description. The description mentions 'kind and namespace filters' which directly maps to two parameters, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's detailed property descriptions.

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 'List' with the resource 'APIs' and scopes it to 'between two retail patches', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_versions or compare_api by focusing on added/removed/structurally changed changes. This makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious.

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 implies a usage context (comparing two retail patches) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over compare_api or other alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool guidance is provided, so the agent must infer usage from the description and sibling tool names.

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