get_diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits the schema cannot: the diff is 'frozen' (an immutable snapshot rather than live state) and it carries old and new line numbers per line. It omits error behavior for an invalid analysis_id and any size/truncation limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with zero filler. Every clause adds information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must describe the return shape, which it does (old and new line numbers per line). It leaves gaps around failure modes and behavior on very large diffs, but is otherwise complete for a read-only inspection tool.

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 baseline would be 3; the description still earns extra credit by explaining the two-column line-number output and which column to use for downstream locations. The path default it mentions is largely redundant with 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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the frozen diff'), plus the exact scope: one file, or all files when path is omitted. An agent immediately knows what this returns and how scope is controlled, without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance ('or of every file when path is omitted') and, unusually, cross-tool guidance that the NEW-side column must be used for finding locations and diagram node lines. It does not name alternatives or exclusions (e.g. when to prefer get_analysis), so it stops short of 5.

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