get_file_diff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (unified diff with added/removed/modified lines and context), which is useful. However, it omits edge-case behaviors like handling of binary files, invalid file paths, or revision fallback details, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states purpose, the second describes return content. No fluff, front-loaded, and appropriately sized.

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 simple read-only tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains both functionality and return format. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though it could optionally mention the revision_id default.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage but not exceeding it.

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 'Get the diff of a specific file in a Gerrit change' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like get_change_details (whole change) and list_change_files (file listing). It also specifies the return type (unified diff) which reinforces purpose.

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 context is clear for when to use this tool (when you need a specific file's diff), but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. No sibling tool is named as an alternative, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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