Compute a line-based unified diff between two entries to show what changed.
Compute line-based LCS unified diff between two entries
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id1 | No | First entry ID | |
| id2 | No | Second entry ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the diff algorithm and output format ('line-based LCS unified diff'), but does not describe prerequisites such as whether entries must exist, error behavior, or read-only implications.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It efficiently conveys the operation and output format.
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 simple two-parameter read-only comparison tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it names the diff algorithm and output format. It omits edge-case behavior and explicit usage context, but the tool's complexity is low.
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%, so both id1 and id2 are already documented. The description confirms they are entries to compare, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: compute a line-based LCS unified diff between two entries. No sibling tool does comparison or diffing, so it is clearly distinguishable.
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 usage is implied by the phrase 'between two entries', but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It gives enough context to infer the basic use case but no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.