Sb3 Git Diff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it states what the tool reports (targets, block counts, assets) and implies a non-destructive read operation. However, it does not address edge cases such as invalid or non-unpacked directories, whether anything is modified, or any side effects, leaving safety properties to inference.

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?

A single eight-word sentence with zero filler: the action, the resource constraint ('unpacked'), and the output contents are all front-loaded and every word 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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential 'what' and provides the key parameter clue (unpacked directory). It is incomplete in that the tool's 'diff' naming is left unexplained and its relationship to similarly purposed siblings (project_summary, sb3_project_info) is never clarified.

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 0% and 'project_dir' is only typed as a required string, so the description's 'unpacked project dir' is the sole semantic guidance for the parameter. It usefully disambiguates the parameter as a directory path rather than a packed .sb3 file, but it does not specify path formats, absolute/relative requirements, or behavior on invalid input.

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 action ('Summarise') and resource ('an unpacked project dir'), and enumerates the covered contents ('targets, block counts, assets'). However, it does not differentiate this from overlapping siblings like project_summary or sb3_project_info, and the title 'Diff' versus the action 'Summarise' creates some ambiguity about whether the tool computes differences.

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 qualifier 'unpacked' implies the tool is used on directories produced by an unpack step (e.g., sb3_git_unpack) rather than packed .sb3 files, which is a genuine usage constraint. But no alternatives are named, no when-not-to-use conditions are given, and nothing routes an agent away from similarly purposed siblings like project_summary or sb3_project_info.

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