Retrieve native diff evidence for a specified coding agent provider while keeping provider identity intact. Use provider and nativeId to access the exact diff.
Read native diff evidence while preserving provider identity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nativeId | Yes | ||
| provider | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.18Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the notion of 'preserving provider identity', which is a behavioral trait not fully captured by annotations, so it provides some additional value without contradicting them.
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?
A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action with zero waste. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 two required parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what 'native diff evidence' is, how to obtain valid nativeId, or what the return format might look like. It is incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without further inference.
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 for parameter meaning. It gives a vague hint about provider identity but does not explain nativeId or how the two parameters relate. The description fails to document the parameters adequately.
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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('native diff evidence'), and adds the qualifier 'preserving provider identity' which gives scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like evidence_list, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer suitability on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.