omnistate_inspect_diff

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does state the key safety property: 'without altering state,' making it effectively read-only. It says nothing about failure modes, whether the check can block later steps, or what the result contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the state-safety qualifier is attached immediately to the action. 'Anti-laziness' is the only word that does not clearly earn its place without a definition.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain what the inspection reports and how a failure should be interpreted, but it stops at the action. An agent can invoke it, but cannot predict or act on the result.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is no argument semantics for the description to compensate for. Baseline of 4 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: run an inspection over the working tree diff. The name and description agree, so an agent knows this is a read-side check rather than a state transition. What 'anti-laziness' actually verifies is unexplained jargon, and nothing tells it apart from the sibling omnistate_audit.

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 call this versus omnistate_audit, omnistate_status, or omnistate_begin/omnistate_finish. No prerequisites are given, such as whether a diff must already exist or whether omnistate_begin has to run first.

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