diff_frmr

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 states the tool computes a diff, implying a read-only comparison, but doesn't specify if it's destructive, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format is. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to grasp quickly.

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 the complexity of a diff operation with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral traits, and output format, making it inadequate for full contextual understanding.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters. It mentions 'by identifier' which hints at 'id_key', but doesn't explain 'left_path' or 'right_path' (e.g., file paths or document IDs), nor does it clarify the diff structure. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 ('Compute a structured diff') and the resource ('between two FRMR documents by identifier'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_frmr_documents' or 'get_frmr_document', which might handle FRMR documents differently, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing existing FRMR documents, or compare to siblings like 'get_frmr_document' for retrieval, leaving usage context implied at best.

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