get_health_diff

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

No annotations exist, so description fully carries transparency burden. It states returns before/after scores with improvement/regression verdict, which is clear. However, it doesn't disclose if the tool is read-only, any side effects, or performance implications.

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, concise sentence front-loads the action and output. Every word 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?

No output schema, so description explains return value (scores and verdict). Adequate for a simple tool with 3 params, but could elaborate on what 'health' means or the comparison methodology.

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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's param descriptions, which already explain tagName, baseBranch, and libraryId adequately.

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 the tool compares health between branches, returning scores and a verdict. It distinguishes from siblings like get_health_summary and get_health_trend by specifying comparison and verdict.

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 implies usage for comparing branch health but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned despite many sibling tools for different analyses.

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