Get Diff Artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses output type, mode behavior, and a retention threshold. It does not disclose whether artifact generation writes state, requires specific repository context, or has side effects.

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?

Two compact sentences with the main action front-loaded and no filler. Technical jargon ('chirurgicale', 'Antigravity') slightly reduces clarity but not conciseness.

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?

For an 8-parameter, 1-required tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the description covers only modes and output type. The output schema may cover return shape, but input semantics and intended invocation context remain largely incomplete.

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% and the description only hints at the `mode` values ('paper'/'draft'); the required `target`, plus `content`, `brain_dir`, `to_commit_id`, `from_commit_id`, and `artifact_name`, are left undefined. This is insufficient for a tool with eight parameters.

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 opens with an active verb and concrete resource ('Génère la vue différentielle... AST') and names the produced artifact ('artéfact Markdown Antigravity'). It clearly separates this from sibling commit/list/prune tools, though it never explicitly contrasts with a sibling.

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?

It distinguishes the paper and draft modes with their targets (LaTeX/Markdown with KaTeX vs tag audit/retention >=90%), giving mode-selection guidance. It does not state when to prefer this tool over sibling git-history tools or list prerequisites/exclusions.

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