asset_diff_runs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey the read-only nature implicitly through 'report what changed' and clarifies the baseline/later ordering of run IDs. However, it doesn't explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it mention any potential side effects or prerequisites.

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, each earning its place: the core purpose, the specific diff categories, and parameter definitions. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids unnecessary details, making it quick to parse.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states inputs, their meaning, and the nature of the output. It doesn't describe the exact response format, but that is less critical given the clear reporting categories and tool 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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'prev_run_id: the earlier (baseline) run id' and 'curr_run_id: the later run id'. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the bare integer type in 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Compare... and report') and resource ('two scan runs'). It lists concrete output categories (new/disappeared/changed hosts, services, vulnerabilities), which distinguishes it from siblings like asset_latest_changes or asset_list_runs.

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 intended use case is implied by the purpose ('Compare two scan runs'), but the description does not explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or direct sibling references. It's clear context but lacks explicit guidance.

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