diffAgentVersion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which indicates a safe read operation. The description adds that the diff is 'record-level' and explains the comparison modes. It does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as authorization requirements or rate limits, but given the read-only nature, it is sufficient.

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, with the first sentence immediately stating the purpose. Each subsequent sentence adds specific information about the default behavior and the 'against' parameter. There is no redundant information, and the tag line is minimal.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally describe the return value. It does not specify what the diff format looks like (e.g., list of changes, unified diff). While the description is adequate for basic usage, the lack of output description leaves a gap for the agent to understand the response structure.

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 has 100% coverage, with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the default comparison and the semantics of 'against=current' (what restoring would change), which goes beyond the schema's 'agent's live config'. This additional context helps the agent understand the parameter's effect.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'record-level diff' for this version. It clearly states the action and the object. Among sibling tools, no other tool provides diff functionality, so it is well-distinguished.

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 explains the default behavior (comparing with previous version) and provides examples for the 'against' parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like restoreAgentVersion or listAgentVersions, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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