cfg_diff

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation (computing a diff) but does not explicitly state that no modifications occur or detail any side effects. The nature of diffing is generally safe, but more explicit transparency would improve the score.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and a brief parameter list. Every word contributes value with no redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the core function and immediately followed by parameter details.

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?

Given the low complexity (two string parameters) and existence of an output schema, the description is marginally adequate. However, it does not explain the output format (e.g., returns a string or file path) or provide examples. The output schema may cover this, but the description alone lacks completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It provides clear explanations for both parameters (config_a as original, config_b as modified) beyond the schema's bare names. This adds meaningful semantic context, though it lacks format examples or constraints.

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 that the tool computes a unified diff between two OpenSIPS configurations. It uses a specific verb ('Compute') and resource ('unified diff between two OpenSIPS configurations'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cfg_diff_reference by being the basic diff operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool compared to other cfg_* siblings, such as cfg_diff_reference, cfg_lint, or cfg_parse. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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