diff_queries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that line endings are ignored, which is useful and beyond annotations. It also mentions the snapshot path requirement, but doesn't describe edge cases like mismatched types or error handling, which are less critical given the read-only guarantee.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, examples are concise, and the snapshot note is a single clause. Every word earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the agent doesn't know what the tool returns (e.g., a diff string, a boolean, or a structured report). The parameters are also underspecified, and the tool's complexity (comparing different source types) warrants more detail. An agent might call it with the wrong format and get an unexpected error or ambiguous result.

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 two string parameters, source_a and source_b, but no descriptions. The tool description does not clarify what these strings should represent (paths, IDs, or something else) except indirectly for snapshots ('pass its path'). Given 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent guessing about valid input formats.

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 clear, specific action: compare queries between two sources. It gives concrete examples of source types (workbook, exported folder, PBIP) and even notes line endings are ignored, which uniquely distinguishes this tool from any sibling. There is no other diff tool, so it's 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?

It provides explicit guidance for a special case (comparing against a snapshot by passing its path from list_snapshots) and implies general use for any two sources. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, the absence of a competing diff tool makes exclusions unnecessary. It also hints at the need for valid source identifiers.

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