diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds a notable behavior: '自动拒绝 default-skills（workspace-watcher 管理的 19 个 skill）'. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, what output to expect, or how errors (e.g., missing skill) are handled.

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 compact, consisting of two sentences. It front-loads the purpose and then provides requirements and a key constraint, with no unnecessary words or fluff.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with two required parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and an important restriction, but it lacks details on the output format (e.g., how differences are presented) and does not clarify prerequisites like workspace existence. Given the absence of an output schema, this leaves some gaps for the user.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters fully (skill name and workspace slug with examples). The description only repeats the requirement to specify them, adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 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 clearly states the tool's function: '对比母版和某个子版 skill 的完整目录差异（文件级 + 行级）' (compare complete directory differences between master and sub-version skill, file-level + line-level). It is specific with a verb and resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check' or 'sync'.

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 mentions required parameters ('需指定 skill 名和目标工作区 slug') and the automatic rejection of default-skills, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or mention of preferable scenarios compared to siblings.

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