tool_diff_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral information. It accurately states the core computation and implies a pure, read-only operation, but it does not mention how context_lines affects output, whether diffing is line-based, or what the exact return structure is. The existence of an output schema mitigates the return-format gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to stating what the tool does.

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 is simple and has an output schema to cover return values, so the description does not need to explain that aspect. However, key contextual details such as the meaning of context_lines and any assumptions about text handling are absent, making the description adequate but not fully complete.

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 adds only minimal semantics by referring to 'two texts', which maps to text1 and text2. It does not explain the order or role of the two text parameters in the diff, nor does it describe context_lines, leaving a meaningful gap in parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('compute') and a specific resource ('unified diff') scoped to 'two texts'. This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from all listed sibling tools, none of which perform text diffing.

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 intended usage is implied by the description: use when a unified diff between two texts is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives, though no sibling tool directly competes for this task.

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