Get the working RibbonDiffXml

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns the un-published working copy and explicitly mentions the checkout requirement — a meaningful condition. The verb 'Return' implies a read operation, but the description does not touch on error cases (e.g., no checkout) or return representation, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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, focused sentence that opens with the action and object, then adds the critical detail about checkout. Every clause earns its place — 'current working copy', 'requires checkout', and 'complete declarative customization state' all add unique value without redundancy.

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?

For a read-only getter with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, this description adequately conveys the return value's nature and a key precondition. It could mention the expected return format or behavior when checkout is missing, but the name, title, and description together give an agent enough to invoke and interpret this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of both parameters, including detailed descriptions (e.g., the 'APPLICATION' experimental note and the environment default). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already contains, so it meets the baseline for well-covered schemas rather than exceeding it.

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 ('Return') and names a concrete resource ('the entity's RibbonDiffXml'), further narrowing it to the 'current working copy' — the full declarative customization state. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling getters like ribbon_get_structure and ribbon_get_command, which target more focused pieces. The phrase 'complete declarative customization state that will be published' removes any ambiguity about scope.

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 states a clear prerequisite: 'requires checkout', telling the agent this tool is only usable when an active checkout exists. It also frames the return as the full working state, implicitly steering away from the more partial getters. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the differentiation from sibling getters somewhat implicit.

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