ateam_github_diff

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently states that it compares head vs base, returns ahead_by, and shows commits and files. It does not mention destructive behavior, which is appropriate. Could be improved by explicitly stating it's read-only.

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 concise and well-structured. The opening sentence provides the label and defaults; then bullet points explain when to use. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and usage scenarios adequately. It mentions that it shows commits and files, which is sufficient for understanding the output. Minor improvement could be adding output format details.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining defaults for base and head, and clarifying the direction of comparison (base is target, head is source). This goes beyond the schema.

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 it's a pre-flight check before promote, comparing dev vs main by default, and shows commits and files. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ateam_github_promote.

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 explicitly provides three use cases: review changes before promoting, check if dev is ahead of main, and inspect arbitrary comparisons. It implicitly indicates when not to use (the actual promote is for ateam_github_promote).

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