pilot_page_diff

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it strips scripts, styles, and SVG before comparing. It describes the return format (unified diff text with '---' and '+++') and lists error scenarios (Invalid URL, timeout). This provides rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 a clear purpose sentence, use cases, behavioral note, parameter definitions, return description, and errors. It is concise but not overly terse; every sentence earns its place. Could be slightly more compact but excellent overall.

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 simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, errors, parameter semantics, and return format. No output schema exists, so the return description is necessary and provided.

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%, but the description adds significant value by explaining that url1 corresponds to removed lines and url2 to added lines, and by detailing error conditions. This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 generates a text diff comparing visible content of two URLs. It uses specific verbs ('Generate a text diff') and identifies the resource ('visible content of two URLs'). It distinguishes from siblings like `pilot_snapshot_diff` by focusing on raw URL content rather than snapshots.

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 explicitly provides use cases (comparing staging vs production, before vs after deployments) and tells the agent when to use it ('when the user wants to see what text differs'). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but the given context is sufficient. No direct comparison to sibling `pilot_snapshot_diff` but implied.

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