archy_diff

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It explains the return value (deltas, violations) but does not state whether the tool is read-only or if it has side effects. It also omits error cases (e.g., missing snapshot).

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence defines the core action, the second adds output details and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Although the output is described, the parameter 'path' is left undefined. Given the complexity of architectural tools, the agent likely needs to know what the path refers to (e.g., a specific module or project root). The description is incomplete for effective invocation.

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 only parameter 'path' has 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not explain what 'path' represents (e.g., file path or component path). This is a significant gap for a required argument.

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 it compares current project state to the last snapshot and specifies the output (per-component score deltas, cycles and layer violations added/resolved). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like archy_score (absolute score) or archy_check (validation).

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?

Explicitly says 'Use after edits to localize regressions' and references the 'loop' prompt for more context. This provides clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly list when not to use it.

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