diff_amendment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output content (timeline rows and summary) and mentions that results are cached, which is a relevant behavioral trait. While it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or permissions, the diff-focused wording strongly implies a non-mutating 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is clean and each sentence adds value, including the 'Cached' note and the reference to amendments(). No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters, one required. The description covers both parameters clearly, states the output essence, notes caching, and provides pointers for finding valid inputs. An output schema exists, so return format details are not necessary. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema provides only parameter names and types with no descriptions (0% coverage). The tool description compensates fully by explaining that 'name' is a slug or title and pointing to amendments() for valid values, and that 'event' is an optional code for disambiguation. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 what the tool does: it computes what an amendment changed versus the schedule it amends, specifically moved/added/removed timeline rows plus a summary. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like amendments() or doc_history by focusing on the diff operation.

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 the tool should be used when you need to see the actual changes an amendment makes to a schedule, and it points users to amendments() for valid names. It also explains the optional event parameter for disambiguation, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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