bouncer_diff_release

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output is 'raw evidence for humans' and lists the data categories returned, which is useful, but it discloses nothing about cost, rate limits, or bulk/verbosity behavior for a tool that fetches a full package diff.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the 'Raw evidence for humans' framing followed by the enumerated contents and the usage call-to-action. No filler, though the parenthetical list is dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the diff's contents. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to call and interpret it, though the human-vs-machine output distinction could be clearer.

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%, with name/from/to all documented in-schema (including the npm scoped-name example), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, ordering, or range guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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+resource (diff two versions of a package) and enumerates the exact dimensions covered: publisher, provenance, install scripts, dependencies, file changes, risky code patterns. It is distinguishable from generic checks, though it never names an overlapping sibling like bouncer_check_upgrade or bouncer_check_package.

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 closing clause 'Use it to explain a REVIEW or BLOCK' gives a real usage context tied to sibling outputs, but there is no when-not guidance and no explicit alternative named among the six siblings that could also surface version-change data. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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