Diff Recipe Revisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuine operational context: a 404 when the recipe or either revision is missing, the "blank equals absent" convention, and that prior rows are matched by variable and role. Return-format details duplicate the output schema, but the error and matching semantics are real additions.

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?

Front-loaded with the core answer, but a large share of the text enumerates the return payload (settings[], priors[], data, counts) that the output schema already defines, which is wasted space. Dense but not 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?

Covers error behavior and edge semantics for a read-only three-parameter tool, and the output schema handles return values. The main remaining gap is that the three required input parameters are never described, leaving their meaning to inference.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It implies base/other are the two revisions being compared and that recipe_id scopes them, but gives no types, ordering rules, or which is "from" vs "to". Partial compensation only.

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 (diff) and resource (two revisions of one recipe) with the exact scope of comparison. An agent can distinguish it from diff_quality_policies and compare_study_runs without reading 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?

"Read this after publishing revision N+1 to state exactly what an edit changed" gives clear timing/context for use. It does not name alternatives (e.g. get_recipe_revision for a single revision) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the top score.

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