layerfs_fs_diff_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds one piece of non-annotation context: cross-path comparison is permitted. It says nothing about output shape or ordering, which leaves a gap.

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?

A single short sentence with the capability note front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the parameter explanation a caller needs.

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?

For a four-required-parameter diff tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description is too thin: it does not define ref values, path constraints (schema requires leading '/'), or what the diff result contains. An agent would need to guess at the ref format before calling.

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 carry all four parameters, and it does not. It never explains what a 'ref' is (commit, branch, snapshot?) or that leftRef/rightRef accept the same value type; 'different paths' only loosely hints at leftPath/rightPath.

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?

States a specific verb (Compare) and resource (two saved file versions), and the clause 'including versions at different paths' adds scope that distinguishes it from a same-path diff. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like layerfs_branch_diff_commits or layerfs_branch_diff_branches, but 'file versions' vs 'commits/branches' makes the distinction inferable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of layerfs_branch_diff_commits or layerfs_branch_diff_branches, nor any prerequisites. The only usage signal is the implicit hint that left/right paths may differ, which is a capability note rather than a when-to-use rule.

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