diff_traces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains the output behavior (same=true on structural match, otherwise lists additions/removals/changes) and how ignore_paths alters classification. It stops short of detailing error handling or side effects, but for a read-only diff tool the critical behaviors are disclosed.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. It efficiently includes return value breakdown and an actionable example for ignore_paths without any filler. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by fully explaining the return structure (same, additions, removals, changes). It also covers the optional ignore_paths parameter with examples. It lacks explicit notes on assumptions (e.g., traces must be normalized), but the tool name itself conveys that, and the description is otherwise thorough for a diff utility.

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 already provides 100% coverage, describing each parameter with types and meanings (e.g., baseline is 'typically loaded from a snapshot file'). The description adds value by giving a concrete example for ignore_paths ('fingerprint','tools[0].result_hash') and clarifying its prefix-matching behavior, but baseline/current semantics are already well-covered in the schema, so the description only marginally extends beyond 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 clearly states the verb 'diff' and specific resource 'normalized agentsnap traces', distinguishing it from sibling tools like validate_snapshot and normalize_trace. It also explains the output categories (same, additions, removals, changes), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 implies when to use the tool (comparing two traces) by explicitly naming the inputs and the purpose. It also gives practical guidance on using ignore_paths to drop noisy fields with a concrete example. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the unique verb and resource make the usage context clear.

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