delegate_diff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'non-destructively', signaling a read-only operation, which is a key safety property. However, it does not detail any potential side effects, permission requirements, or failure modes, leaving some 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, well-structured sentence. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately lists the specific inspection targets. No filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explicitly lists the outputs (git status, modified files, insertions/deletions, unified diff patch), giving the agent a clear expectation. It does not cover error cases or edge scenarios, but for a simple inspection tool this is reasonably complete. The optional workspace parameter is documented in the schema.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the only parameter (workspace_dir) with a clear description. The tool description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, but it does imply the parameter through 'target workspace'. This meets the baseline for adequate 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 action ('Inspect') and the resource (git status, modified files, insertions/deletions, unified diff patch). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'agy_diff' by including git status and modified files, but does not explicitly contrast with it. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (to inspect repository changes) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this over 'agy_diff' or other siblings. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. The usage context is inferable but not stated directly.

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