Show the unified diff of files changed by a run in its working copy so you can review exactly what an agent modified.
Show the unified diff of the files a run changed in its working copy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run | No | Run id (or 'last'). | |
| project | No | Absolute path of the project directory (default: server's cwd). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully scopes the result to the run's working copy rather than the committed tree, but it says nothing about diff size limits, truncation of large diffs, or whether untracked/binary files appear.
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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the output type ('unified diff') ahead of the scoping qualifier. Nothing is repeated from the name or annotations.
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 two-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough to invoke it correctly. The only meaningful gap is behavior on very large diffs and what 'working copy' includes, which a slightly longer description could cover.
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% – both 'run' (including the 'last' shorthand) and 'project' (with its cwd default) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 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?
The description pairs a specific verb ('Show') with a specific artifact ('unified diff of the files a run changed in its working copy'), making the tool's output clearly distinct from mutating siblings like aegis_apply or aegis_discard. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops 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?
Usage is implied – an agent can infer this inspects changes before applying or discarding them – but the description never states when to use it, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for related inspection (e.g. aegis_runs). No explicit routing guidance is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.