octri_diff_builds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a useful prerequisite by specifying the builds must already be fetched, and that comparison is file-level and language-scoped. It omits whether the operation is read-only, what the return payload looks like, and any permission needs.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the mechanism and closed with the recommended use case. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 4 params at 25% coverage, the description does cover the core mechanism but leaves the required build-id params and return shape unexplained. Adequate for orientation but incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 coverage is only 25%, with just project_id documented. The two required params (from_build_id, to_build_id) and language are undocumented in both schema and description; the phrase 'per language' hints at the language param's role but adds no format or default detail.

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?

States a specific verb (compare) and resource (two fetched builds' emitted files) with the comparison dimension spelled out (added, removed, changed), plus a per-language scope. An agent can distinguish it from list_builds/get_build, which only enumerate or fetch individual builds.

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 primary way to judge a generator change' gives clear positive guidance on when to reach for this tool, effectively positioning it above sibling build tools. It does not, however, name an alternative or state exclusions (e.g. when to prefer list_generated_files instead).

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