memory_version_diff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. It adds value by explaining the output format ('added/removed lines plus a summary count') and noting that 'to' defaults to the current version. No contradictions 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?

The description is only two sentences, with every word contributing. The first sentence states the core purpose with a trust metaphor, and the second gives usage guidance and output summary. No wasted text.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must convey return format. It mentions 'added/removed lines plus a summary count', which is adequate but could be more precise (e.g., format of the diff). Still, the description suffices for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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?

All three parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by stating that 'to defaults to the current version', which is not in the schema. This provides clarity beyond the schema alone.

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 shows a line-by-line diff between two revisions of a memory, using a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('diff'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like memory_history, memory_versions, and memory_version_restore by focusing on detailed comparison for auditing.

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 says 'Use it to audit exactly what an edit changed', providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or directly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., memory_versions for listing, memory_history for history).

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