Diff Files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the tool is clearly a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds the specific output format (Unified-Diff-Format), which provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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, well-formed sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output format. No unnecessary words or redundant information.

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 simple inputs (two file paths and an optional context lines parameter), the description covers the core functionality. However, it does not mention any potential constraints like file existence or formats, but given the schema's completeness and the tool's simplicity, it is largely adequate.

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 the three parameters with descriptions. The description does not add any further semantic context beyond what the schema provides, but it also does not need to. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 that the tool compares two files and shows differences in unified diff format. It is a specific verb ('vergleicht') plus resource ('zwei Dateien') with an explicit output format, which distinguishes it from siblings like cc_analyze_code or cc_cleanup_file.

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 usage for comparing two files, but it does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus other tools that might also handle file comparisons (none directly, but siblings like cc_analyze_code could be related). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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