diff_reports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the safety and behavior burden. It clearly describes comparison and reporting behavior and adds useful nuance about inherited findings and PR gate evaluation, though it does not explicitly state read-only status or side-effect profile beyond the inherent diff semantics.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the sibling-routing condition and a parameter use case. Every sentence contributes specific guidance with no filler.

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?

The tool is a report-diff operation with an output schema and fully described inputs, so return values and parameter formats do not need to be repeated. The description supplies the selection rationale, behavioral nuance, and gate-evaluation purpose an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents basePath, headPath, limit, and failOnNew. The description adds meaningful intent for failOnNew by tying it to whether a pull request gate would fail, exceeding the schema's parameter definition.

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 and resource: compare two scans and report introduced versus resolved findings. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from summarize_report by naming the question it answers better, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use rule: use this rather than summarize_report when the question is whether a change made things worse. It explains the inherited-findings failure mode and adds a concrete use case for failOnNew, leaving little ambiguity about routing.

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