diffAgentVersion

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the diff semantics: comparing with the live config reveals 'what restoring this version would change'. It also clarifies the default comparison behavior. The readOnlyHint is consistent with the described action, and no contradictions exist.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses three sentences to convey purpose, default behavior, and usage options without redundancy or irrelevant details. The structure is easy to scan and each sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the diff scope, default target, and alternative comparison modes. It does not describe the return format, but that is not required given that no output schema exists and the tool's purpose is straightforward.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value for the 'against' parameter by explaining special values ('current', a number) and what each comparison means. This goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Get a record-level diff for this version.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like listAgentVersions or restoreAgentVersion. It also explains the default behavior and comparison options, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear context on when to use the tool and how to specify comparisons: 'By default it shows what changed in this version compared with the version before it' and explicitly describes the 'against' parameter options. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage scenarios are well defined for a diff tool.

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