Compare two binary files to identify byte-level differences, helping game modders verify patches, detect changes, and diagnose mismatches between versions.
Compare two binary files and show differences.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_diffs | No | Max differences to show (default 50) | |
| file_path_a | Yes | Path to first file | |
| file_path_b | Yes | Path to second file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only comparison but does not state side effects, permissions, input constraints, or output format, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though its brevity is a symptom of under-specification rather than optimal efficiency.
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 binary-diff tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain what 'differences' are shown, how detailed the output is despite the name, or how it relates to sibling comparison tools.
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%, so the schema already documents both required file paths and the optional max_diffs parameter. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline score of 3 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?
States a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('two binary files') and says it shows differences. It is clear but does not differentiate itself from siblings like diff_assemblies, jar_diff, or compare_signatures, so it falls 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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.