delimit_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'Pure diff, no policy' but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or any other behavioral traits such as performance considerations or error handling. The description is minimal.

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 short sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds a distinguishing characteristic. No wasted words.

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 that the tool has an output schema (though not visible), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential purpose and differentiation. However, it lacks details about prerequisites like valid spec format, but overall it is fairly complete for a simple diff tool.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (old_spec, new_spec). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Diff' and the resource 'two OpenAPI specs', and indicates the output 'list all changes'. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting 'Pure diff, no policy', implying that other diff tools may involve policy considerations.

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 implies that this tool is for pure diff without policy, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like delimit_diff_report or other diff tools. No exclusions or contextual guidance is provided.

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