Natives added between builds

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

The description discloses that results are derived from the `since` field and limited to added natives, which is behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It doesn't describe the output layout or edge cases, but annotations already cover the safety profile, so the added detail is meaningful.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and immediately followed by relatable user questions. There is no filler and no repetition of schema content.

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 read-only two-parameter diff tool, the description plus schema and annotations are sufficient: it states what is returned (added natives), how the comparison works, and when it is useful. No missing information is needed to select or invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%: `from` and `to` are documented with examples and the `main` sentinel default. The description only restates the direction of comparison and adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 first sentence states a precise operation: list natives a newer build adds relative to an older build, using the `since` field. This is more specific than the title and distinguishes it from sibling search/browse tools by its build-comparison scope.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use scenarios ('what do I gain by updating', 'why does this work on my dev box and not on the owner's server'), making the trigger conditions clear. It does not name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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