bom_diff

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful trait: it reports conflicts rather than auto-selecting a value. But it does not mention side effects, required permissions, or failure 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?

One compact sentence with the core information front-loaded. The internal references 'S1' and 'nguyên tắc 3' are cryptic, but they do not prevent the main message from being delivered efficiently.

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?

There is an output schema, so return details are not required. Still, for a 3-parameter tool with no annotations, the description leaves bom_sheet undefined and relies on unexplained 'principle 3' context, making it minimally viable rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It loosely maps 'tech pack' and 'BOM' to the two required file parameters, but it does not explain the optional bom_sheet parameter or specify expected input format (paths vs content).

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 uses a specific verb ('so' – compare) and resource ('tech pack với BOM'), and states the outcome ('báo mâu thuẫn' – report contradictions). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like techpack_parse and bom_extract, which parse/extract rather than diff.

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 phrase 'S1' implies a step in a workflow, and the compare-and-report purpose gives an implicit use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use situations.

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