Diff Page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the schema: it returns a unified diff and defaults to comparing from_version with the current body. It omits edge cases (e.g., missing versions, large diffs) but is solid given the annotation coverage.

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, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the default behavior appended. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and readOnly/openWorld annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the endpoint semantics and default behavior needed for correct 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 schema already documents all three parameters with identical wording. The only addition is the default-behavior note ('by default from_version is compared with the current body'), which is minor. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it shows what changed in a page between two points as a unified diff, which is clearly distinct from siblings like get_page_version or list_page_history. It does not explicitly state which sibling it replaces, but the 'unified diff' framing alone distinguishes it.

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?

It explains the accepted inputs for both endpoints ('current', a version from list_page_history, or a snapshot from list_snapshots) and states the default comparison behavior. It doesn't give explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative tools for related tasks, but the context is clear enough to select it confidently.

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