diff_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool returns unified-style +/- lines and counts, which describes the operational behavior. While it doesn't mention edge cases like whitespace handling, the pure-function nature makes this level of transparency adequate.

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 two sentences, with the main action front-loaded. The second sentence efficiently summarizes the return value. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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, the description fully covers what it does and what it returns. There is no output schema, but the return format is explicitly described. No missing side effects or prerequisites exist, making the description contextually 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'a' (Original text) and 'b' (Modified text). The description only refers to 'two text blobs' without adding any details beyond the schema, so no additional semantic value is provided. Baseline 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 opens with 'Line-by-line diff of two text blobs,' which clearly identifies the verb (diff) and resource (two text blobs). It distinguishes this tool from siblings, none of which perform diffing, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever two text blobs need comparison. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but given the tool's unique role among siblings, this context is sufficient. The phrase 'Returns unified-style +/- lines' also sets expectations for the output.

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