agy_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Inspect', which hints at read-only operation but does not explicitly state that no modifications are made, nor does it mention any side effects, required permissions, or output format. The description is minimal and does not provide sufficient behavioral disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 exceptionally concise: one sentence with a leading alias note. It front-loads the most important routing information (alias) and then states the action. Every word is purposeful, with no fluff or redundancy. It is an exemplar of efficient, structured writing.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description provides the core purpose but omits details like return value format, how to specify the workspace directory, and any prerequisites. However, because it is an alias for delegate_diff, the agent can refer to that sibling for full behavior. It is adequate but not fully complete, leaving the agent to infer details from the sibling or context.

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 one parameter (workspace_dir) with no description (0% coverage). The description does not explicitly mention the parameter, but the phrase 'in the target workspace' implies that workspace_dir specifies the target workspace. This is an implicit connection, but it does not add clear semantics such as expected format (e.g., path) or whether it is required. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose: 'Inspect git status and diff patch in the target workspace.' It uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and identifies the resource ('git status and diff patch'), and it explicitly notes it is a legacy alias for delegate_diff, which differentiates it from sibling tools. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct.

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 opens with '[Legacy Alias -> delegate_diff]', which directly tells the agent that the canonical tool is delegate_diff and this is a legacy alias. This implies the agent should prefer delegate_diff, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives beyond the alias. It provides clear context for routing, though it lacks explicit conditional guidance.

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