diff_runs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does reveal the key trait: the tool is not configured and is unavailable. However, it does not describe what happens when called, such as whether it returns an error, a diagnostic message, or an empty result.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that communicates the essential status and a suggested next action. There is no wasted text, and for a zero-parameter stub this is appropriately concise.

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 an unavailable tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it tells the agent the tool cannot perform its normal function and what to do next. It intentionally omits details about diffing runs, which is consistent with the tool's unavailable state.

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 has zero parameters and 100% description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 is appropriate here.

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 the tool is unavailable, but it never explains what diff_runs actually does. An agent cannot tell what operation the tool performs or how it differs from siblings like run_check or get_run_summary, so the core purpose is missing.

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?

It tells the agent to call the tool to see why it is unavailable, which is explicit for the failure path, but it provides no guidance about normal use or when to choose alternatives. The reason is already stated in the description, making the 'call it to see why' instruction somewhat redundant.

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