sharphy_diff_assemblies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the safety profile; it does declare 'Read-only comparison', which tells the agent this is a non-mutating operation. It also scopes the depth of analysis (metadata-level, not full method bodies). It does not mention behavior on invalid or non-.NET inputs, performance cost on large assemblies, or the shape of the comparison result, so a small gap remains.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core comparison semantics, followed by usage context and the exclusion. The middle sentence enumerating use cases is slightly redundant with the opening purpose statement, but every clause still contributes routing or scope information.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys what the comparison yields (added/removed types, breaking changes, CIL size shifts), that it is read-only, and where the boundary lies versus decompilation. Only return format and error/precondition handling are left implicit.

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%: both oldAssemblyPath and newAssemblyPath are documented as baseline and updated paths respectively. The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond implying the two versions are compared, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (compares two compiled .NET assemblies) plus the precise comparison layer (ECMA-335 metadata) and the resulting signal types (added/removed types, API breaking changes, CIL instruction size shifts). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sharphy_decompile_method, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

Names concrete usage contexts (validating library updates, regression testing, detecting API modifications) and pairs an explicit exclusion with the correct alternative: 'Do NOT use for decompiling full method bodies (use sharphy_decompile_method)'. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both present.

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