Diff library assets

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: it emphasizes offline operation ('Does not touch TouchDesigner') and details what differences are reported (keys, values, and for recipes also nodes/params/connections), which goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences efficiently convey purpose, output, and key behavioral note. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 description covers the tool's main purpose, supported asset types, and behavior. Since an output schema exists, the lack of return format details is acceptable. Minor gap: no mention of error handling or file existence checks, but overall sufficient for an informed agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds moderate extra value by explaining the effect of the 'mode' parameter (recipe-aware vs generic diff) and listing the mode options, but this overlaps with the schema's enum 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 it performs an offline deep diff of two saved library assets on disk, listing specific file types and what it reports. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool diff_snapshots, which compares live TD graphs.

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 explicitly directs users to use diff_snapshots when comparing live TD graphs, providing a clear alternative and unambiguous usage context.

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