diff_profiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose the key behavioral distinction between mode=resolved (effective values) and mode=raw (stored deltas), which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output shape is, or any error 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds the key mode distinction. Every word earns its place, and it is efficiently sized for the information it conveys.

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 annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, so the description must be self-sufficient. It explains the mode semantics but fails to address the required 'type' parameter, profile identifier format, or what the returned diff looks like. An agent could not reliably call this tool correctly without additional information.

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 compensate for all four parameters. It adds meaning for 'mode' by explaining resolved vs raw, and it clarifies that a and b are two profiles, but the required 'type' parameter is completely unexplained. This is a significant gap.

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 a specific action ('Compare two profiles') and the two comparison modes, which distinguishes it from the raw name. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tool compare_with_upstream, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies the tool is for comparing two profiles, but it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives like compare_with_upstream or check_deltas. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use cues.

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