Diff a configuration profile against the live config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses meaningful behaviors: the tool reports only differences and redacts passwords unless requested ('Passwords are redacted unless you ask for them'). These go beyond the schema and give the agent important expectations for output. It falls short of fully describing permissions or side effects, but for a read-only diff tool this is adequate.

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 two sentences: the first clearly states function and output, the second provides use cases and a security note. It is front-loaded, every sentence earns its place, and there is zero wasted wording.

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 an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, use cases, and redaction behavior. It does not explicitly state that long values are truncated by default, but that is documented in the full_values parameter schema. Overall, it is complete enough for confident tool selection and invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific value; the only mention ('Passwords are redacted unless you ask for them') mirrors the include_secrets parameter description. It does not further clarify any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Compare a saved snapshot's server .ini with the one running now, and report only what differs.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like pz_get_config_profile by emphasizing the diff-only output and the comparison against live config.

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 gives clear usage context with concrete examples ('what changed since Friday', 'what did I break', 'checking whether an edit actually landed'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative siblings, so it misses the full 5.

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