diff

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits, but it only states the core action. It does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., existing snapshots), side effects, output format, or whether the diff is returned inline or referenced.

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 a single sentence with minimal information. While concise, it is under-specified and does not provide enough context to be efficient for an AI agent. A longer description with structured details would be more helpful.

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 29 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks explanation of how snapshots are referenced, the diff algorithm, output format, and error conditions, leaving the agent without critical operational context.

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 high (79%), so the schema documents most parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information. For a tool with many generic device/target parameters, this baseline score is appropriate.

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 'Diff accessibility snapshots' clearly states the tool's purpose: computing a diff between accessibility snapshots. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'snapshot' which likely captures snapshots. However, it does not elaborate on the type of diff (e.g., structural vs. content), slightly limiting precision.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'snapshot' or other comparison tools. The description gives no context for appropriate usage or settings where diffing is applicable.

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