get_watch_change_diff

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

Despite having no annotations, the description discloses important behavior: missing sides are not errors, `hasBefore`/`hasAfter` indicate actual presence, and the tool is free. It doesn't cover all possible error scenarios but gives sufficient behavioral context for caller handling.

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 succinct and well-structured: the core definition is front-loaded, the second sentence clarifies an important edge case, and the free-notification is isolated. Every sentence adds value without 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 narrow purpose and lack of output schema, the description covers the key return scenarios (`hasBefore`/`hasAfter`) and advises on graceful rendering of unavailable diffs. Minor omissions like invalid ID handling are acceptable given the tool's focused scope.

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%, but parameter names (`watch_id`, `change_id`) are self-explanatory, and the description's reference to 'this specific change' provides implied context. It doesn't explicitly document parameters, so it doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap, but the meaning is reasonably clear.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving the section's text before and after a specific change, with a well-defined resource (watch change diff). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_watch_changes by focusing on the diff content itself.

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?

It explicitly states when a diff is meaningful (amended/removed) and when not (added), and directs the caller to consult `hasDiff` on the change list. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and handles edge cases gracefully.

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