page_diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses the cache-vs-fresh comparison, statefulness across visits, and that only changes are surfaced. It does not mention side effects or exactly how the diff is computed, but the core behavioral trait is well covered.

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 compact, front-loaded, and well-structured with clear when/not-when sections. The phrase 'Паттерн change detection' is slightly redundant with the opening sentence, but it does not add meaningful bloat.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the main usage scenarios, exclusions, and the stateful behavior. The main gap is the undocumented max_chars parameter and a lack of detail about what happens when no cache exists, though the first-visit case is addressed in the НЕ КОГДА section.

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%, and the description does not mention max_chars at all. The url parameter is only implicitly referenced via 'страницы' (page), and max_chars remains entirely unexplained despite being an optional but meaningful parameter.

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 verb and resource: it diffs the current page against its previous cached reading and reports what changed. It also differentiates itself from fetch_page by framing the tool as a change-detection pattern, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

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 uses explicit КОГДА/НЕ КОГДА sections: use it on second and subsequent visits for monitoring, and do not use it on first reads or when a full text version is needed, pointing to fetch_page instead. This is direct, actionable routing guidance.

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