diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool reports where versions are held and points to as_of for retrieval, but it does not disclose read-only status, permissions, side effects, or any error behavior.

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 sentence that is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the colon-and-comma structure makes it slightly convoluted and could be clearer.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description needs to convey the return behavior and workflow. It partially does by mentioning versions and locations, and instructing retrieval via as_of, but it does not describe the output format or handle edge cases like no changes between dates.

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 baseline is 3. The description references work, from_date, and to_date in the context of comparing changes, but it does not add any semantics beyond the schema, and the optional 'language' parameter is not mentioned.

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 reports what changed between two dates for a given work, including which versions applied and where texts are held. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'compares', and does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like timeline or changes_in_period.

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 provides an implied workflow: use diff to see changes, then retrieve texts via as_of. It does not explicitly state when to use diff versus alternatives like timeline or changes_in_period, and offers no exclusion criteria.

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