akb_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool shows a diff (added/removed/modified), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires any permissions, or any potential side effects. This is minimal but acceptable for a simple diff tool.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action, describing the output, and providing usage guidance. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no output schema, the description adequately summarizes return values ('what was added/removed/modified'). Parameters are fully covered. It also gives prerequisite usage. While it lacks details on formatting or limits, it is complete enough for a straightforward tool with two parameters.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces that 'commit' comes from history/activity, which is already in the schema. It does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 'get' and resource 'content diff for a document at a specific commit'. It explicitly mentions what the diff shows (added/removed/modified) and distinguishes from siblings like akb_get (which retrieves the document itself) and akb_history/akb_activity (which list commits).

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 explicit guidance to use akb_history or akb_activity first to obtain commit hashes. This establishes a clear prerequisite and usage flow. However, it does not contrast with other similar tools like akb_provenance, which might also return diffs, but the context is sufficiently clear for most agents.

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