summarize_changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the diffing action, mentions the default pair selection, and implies a read-only summarization behavior. It does not explicitly state side effects or failure cases, but for a read-only summarizer this is reasonably transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundant wording. Every sentence adds value: one for the operation, one for usage context.

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 should convey the return value; 'agent-readable summary' is somewhat vague but sufficient. It also mentions dependencies and default behavior. Could be improved by specifying what happens when no before/after pair exists, but overall it is complete enough for a simple tool.

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 coverage is 0% and parameters are optional, so the description must compensate. The names beforeId and afterId are self-explanatory and the 'Defaults to...' hint clarifies optional behavior, but it never directly explains how these parameters override the defaults. This is a moderate 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Diff snapshot before vs after into agent-readable summary.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like execute_batch or scan_document by focusing on summarizing differences rather than executing or scanning.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call after execute_batch (or layout_assistant fix),' providing clear contextual timing. It also notes the default behavior for before/after pairs, but does not mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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