csv_diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'report differences' but does not explain whether this is a read-only operation, what output format is returned, how differences are matched (e.g., using keyField), or any edge cases like identical files. This is a significant omission for a tool that could be confused with a mutating operation.

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, grammatically correct sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, stating the primary action and result. However, it could be expanded moderately without losing conciseness to cover key behavioral details, so it is just short of perfect.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides only a high-level summary. It fails to explain return values, the meaning of 'differences' (row-level, column-level, or both), the role of keyField, or the impact of maxDiffs and compareFields. For a tool with this complexity, the description is far from complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the schema already documents what each parameter does. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, and does not clarify parameter interactions (e.g., how keyField and compareFields work together). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific action ('Compare two CSV files') and the result ('report differences'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like csv_inspect or csv_stats, which serve different purposes. However, it does not fully specify the scope of differences (e.g., row-level or column-level), which is a minor gap.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as csv_search or csv_filter. The phrase 'Compare two CSV files' implies the primary use case, but there is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The description does not help the agent decide between this and sibling tools.

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