medeval_diff_document_revisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a non-destructive, repeatable operation. The description adds 'bounded textual diff', implying the output is limited in size (relating to max_diff_characters). However, it does not disclose behavior like what happens if the diff exceeds the bound or if revisions are missing. Given that annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds minimal extra behavioral context, so a 3 is appropriate.

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, focused sentence that conveys the core purpose without fluff. It front-loads the action and resource, and the qualifier 'bounded' adds value. There is no redundant content, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, the tool has 5 parameters and the description only vaguely references the diff bound. It does not clarify the direction of comparison or how the parameters relate to the operation. For a relatively simple diff tool, the description is adequate but leaves some operational details implicit.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter clarity. While parameter names (workspace_id, document_id, from_revision_id, to_revision_id, max_diff_characters) are self-descriptive, the description only vaguely hints at the diff limit with 'bounded'. It does not explain the significance of 'from' vs 'to' or the default behavior of max_diff_characters. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema's basic titles.

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 a specific verb ('Compare'), the resource ('two immutable revisions'), and the nature of the operation ('bounded textual diff'). It distinguishes from siblings like medeval_read_document_revision (which reads a single revision) and medeval_list_document_revisions (which lists revisions) by focusing on comparison. The purpose is 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 (when a diff between revisions is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It doesn't mention other tools like read or list for comparison. The phrase 'immutable revisions' hints at safety, but there is no exclusionary language. The guidance is derived rather than stated.

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