Get Watch Change Diff

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses important behavior: a missing side is not an error, hasBefore/hasAfter indicate presence, and null should be rendered as 'diff unavailable' rather than treated as failure. It also surfaces cost and output-format differences from siblings. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. Core behavior is front-loaded, followed by edge-case semantics and a practical cost warning. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return shape (before/after documents, hasBefore/hasAfter flags), the hasDiff precondition, and the null-handling behavior. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact response fields and the meaning of watch_id, but it is largely complete for a capable 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?

The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description does not explicitly define watch_id or change_id. However, 'one specific change' and 'change list' provide meaningful context for change_id, and the parameter names are self-descriptive enough to partially compensate.

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 returns full section text before and after one specific change, ready to diff. It also distinguishes itself from sibling law-change tools by noting it returns section text and only applies where hasDiff is true.

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 gives explicit guidance on when the tool is meaningful (hasDiff true), how to handle missing sides, and a cost warning before looping. However, it does not name specific alternative tools, only implies them with 'Unlike the rest of the law-change tools'.

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