diff_local

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 clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Show') and describes the output, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, nor does it mention prerequisites like workspace registration or what happens if no changes exist. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, with a parenthetical clarifying the output format and a purpose clause. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool shows, the output content, and the intended use case. It might benefit from clarifying the output format (e.g., text vs. JSON) or behavior when no changes exist, but overall it is sufficiently informative given the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (projectName and staged) having descriptive text in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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's function with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('uncommitted changes in the registered workspace'), and further specifies the output content ('unified diff + untracked files') and its intended purpose ('for review before pushing'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like pull_local and push_local.

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 provides a clear usage context: use this tool to review uncommitted changes before pushing. It implies the need for a registered workspace and positions it as a pre-push review step. However, it does not explicitly exclude any scenarios or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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