cfg_diff_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'compares' and 'shows which parts are custom,' implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state that it does not modify anything. It also does not mention authorization needs, rate limits, or any side effects.

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 well-structured: a concise one-sentence summary followed by an explanation and a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main action. The parameter list is detailed but not overly verbose. It earns a 4, slightly off from perfect because the parameter descriptions could be considered duplicated from what might be in the schema.

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 tool's complexity (comparison with output schema) and sibling tools, the description is fairly complete. It explains the output shows 'custom' parts, hints at the use case, and references cfg_list_scenarios for scenario names. However, it does not mention prerequisites like needing a reference template or whether it outputs a standard diff format.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides useful descriptions for each parameter: 'config_content: The OpenSIPS configuration text', 'scenario: The reference scenario name (see ``cfg_list_scenarios``)', and 'params: Parameters used to render the reference.' This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles alone.

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 'Compare a config against the reference output for a scenario' with a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('config against reference output'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cfg_diff (which compares two configs) by specifying the comparison target is the reference scenario template.

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 mentions it is 'useful for reviewing what your team has diverged on and would need to re-apply after upgrading the reference template,' which implies a use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cfg_diff or cfg_lint. There is no when-not guidance or mention of other tools.

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