carrel_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that a 'differ' result is data, never an error—a key non-obvious trait—but omits other important behaviors such as path resolution, permission requirements, and behavior when files are missing or modes are incompatible.

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 tightly written sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral note follows immediately afterward.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and one important behavioral trait. However, it leaves gaps around mode semantics, error conditions, and the shape of the diff result that an agent would need for confident 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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already describes a, b, and root. The description adds meaning to the mode parameter by listing the supported types (text/struct/pdf/image), which maps directly to the enum, but it does not explain 'auto' or how mode changes comparison behavior.

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 verb and resource ('Compare two files') and enumerates the supported file types, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like convert or redact. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or scope boundary, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as carrel_inspect or carrel_convert, nor any stated preconditions. Usage is implied by the verb 'Compare', but the description offers no exclusions or alternative routing.

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