d2r_save_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'compare' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state that the tool makes no changes. It also fails to describe what 'structural differences' entail (e.g., specific sections compared) or the output format, leaving the agent without key behavioral information.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences plus parameter docs. It front-loads the core action and avoids any extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It does not describe the return format, error behavior (e.g., missing files, identical saves), or limitations. For a diff tool, the agent needs this context to correctly use and interpret results.

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 0%, yet the description adds only minimal semantic value: 'path_a: First save (treated as "before")' and 'path_b: Second save (treated as "after")'. It does not clarify file path expectations (absolute vs. relative, existence requirements) or any constraints, so the description insufficiently compensates for the sparse schema.

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: comparing two .d2s files and returning structural differences. It specifies the resource type (.d2s files) and the action (compare/diff). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling save tools like d2r_save_inspect or d2r_save_scan, which could cause ambiguity.

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 provides ordering guidance (path_a is 'before', path_b is 'after') but offers no information about when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when a simple scan vs. diff is needed). It lacks explicit usage context or exclusions.

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