as_diff

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it uses a specific command and returns JSON with command and PID, providing some behavioral context. However, it does not elaborate on side effects or detailed behavior beyond the annotations.

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 the purpose stated first, then the command, and finally the return type. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly technical with the command line syntax.

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 simple diff tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return type (JSON with command and PID) and the basic operation. It is complete given the tool's straightforward nature and the presence of other structured metadata.

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 already describes the 'left' and 'right' parameters with descriptions. The description merely mentions 'left and right paths', adding no new semantic value. With schema coverage effectively providing parameter info, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool opens the IDE's visual diff viewer for two files or directories, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like as_apk_compare which focuses on APK comparisons.

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or limitations. The usage is implied but not fully delineated.

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