diff_to_text

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

The description discloses outputs (DOCX with tracked changes, .txt summary) and formatting details (deletions in red, insertions underlined). However, it does not mention error handling, file size limits, or whether original files are modified. Given no annotations, it covers most behavioral aspects but lacks some nuance.

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 well-structured with three clear paragraphs: purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter details. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 comparison tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameters. It lacks mention of error conditions or performance expectations, but overall is sufficiently complete for an agent.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description includes an Args block explaining each parameter (base_path, revised_path, docx_output, text_output), adding meaning beyond the schema type and default values.

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 that the tool compares two DOCX files and produces a tracked-change DOCX and a plain-text summary. It specifies the verb (compare) and resource (two DOCX files), and distinguishes it from the sibling 'generate_change_summary'.

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 ('when you have two distinct files') and when not to use ('if you have already made tracked edits... use generate_change_summary instead'), providing a clear alternative.

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