credence_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains that the tool extracts numeric claims, detects contradictions, and optionally verifies against registry constraints. This gives a clear behavioral model without unexplained side effects.

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 concise with two short paragraphs. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides additional detail. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

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's simplicity (3 parameters, no nested objects, output schema present), the description sufficiently covers purpose and behavior. Minor omission: it doesn't address what happens if texts have no numeric claims, but overall it's complete.

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 the description adds context for each parameter: identifying text_a as 'prior agent response' and text_b as 'new agent response,' and explaining session_id's optional verification role. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 'compare' and the resource 'two texts,' with a specific goal of detecting numeric contradictions. This differentiates it from sibling tools like credence_verify or credence_scan, which serve different purposes.

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 mentions optional behavior with session_id but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like credence_verify or credence_scan. It lacks exclusions or context for selection.

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