Project Graph Diff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small amount of context by specifying that snapshots must be 'retained' and that exactly two are compared, but it does not disclose behavior such as ordering semantics, error conditions, or what happens when snapshots are unavailable.

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 filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 output schema and parameter schema cover return values and parameter meaning, so the description does not need to repeat those. However, it lacks operational context such as how to identify retained snapshots, how the from/to sync versions map to the comparison order, and when this tool should be preferred over related graph 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 all six parameters are already self-documenting. The description does not add any additional meaning about fromSyncVersion, toSyncVersion, projectId, or URL defaults, which is acceptable given the schema carries the full burden.

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 names a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('retained project graph snapshots'), making the core action clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like projects_graph_get or projects_graph_timeline because it explicitly targets a comparison of two snapshots, though it does not name those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related graph tools such as projects_graph_get, projects_graph_timeline, or projects_graph_insights. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are mentioned; the only implied context is the bare action of comparing snapshots.

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