diff_to_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it produces two files with specific content (tracked-change DOCX with red deletions and underlined insertions, and a plain-text summary). It does not cover error handling or prerequisites but adequately describes the core 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 concise and well-structured: opening line states purpose, then usage guidelines, bulleted outputs, alternative tool, and parameter list. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (comparing files, producing two outputs), the description is complete. It covers inputs, outputs, and provides a sibling reference. The output schema exists but the description explains what is produced, making the agent fully informed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The 'Args:' section provides clear one-line descriptions for all four parameters, noting auto-generation for optional outputs. This adds meaning beyond the schema titles and types.

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 compares two DOCX files and produces a tracked-change DOCX and plain-text summary. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'generate_change_summary' by specifying it is for two separate files, not for summarizing existing tracked changes.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use this when you have two distinct files') and provides an alternative ('use generate_change_summary instead') for a different scenario. This clear guidance helps the agent choose the correct tool.

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