validate.diff

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It only discloses a precondition (git availability) but does not explain behavior when git is unavailable, side effects (none expected), or other traits like rate limits or auth. Minimal transparency beyond basic operation.

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 sentence, highly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the core purpose, but it could provide more context without becoming verbose.

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 no output schema and sparse annotations, the description leaves many unknowns: format of the diff, behavior without git, parameter usage details, and limitations. Inadequate for an agent to use reliably without assumptions.

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 description must compensate. The mention of 'cwd/path' hints at the two parameters but does not explain their exact meaning, whether they are optional, or the effect of additionalProperties: true. Lacks sufficient detail for correct invocation.

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 tool returns a git diff for a cwd/path when git is available. It uses specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource (git diff) and scope (cwd/path). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like validate.check or worker.diff by specifying git diff.

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 usage when a git diff is needed and git is available, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools like worker.diff or code.patch. No exclusion conditions or alternatives are mentioned.

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