project_diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden alone: it implies a read-only comparison and discloses the shape of the result (added/removed/changed keys), which is real added value. However it says nothing about permissions, behavior when the .ioc is missing or unloadable, or what happens if both comparison parameters are given.

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 sentence with zero filler; the operation and its result shape are front-loaded, and the parenthetical efficiently enumerates the diff categories.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description only hints at return content via 'added/removed/changed keys' — no indication of grouping, ordering, or how values are rendered. For a comparison tool whose whole value is its result, that leaves a meaningful gap despite the fully documented inputs.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description only adds the mutually exclusive framing ('another project or .ioc file'), without saying the two targets are alternatives or what error results if neither/both are passed.

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: a structural diff of a project's .ioc against another project or .ioc file, and scopes the output to added/removed/changed keys. It does not distinguish itself from the nearby sibling ioc_compare, so an agent must infer which diff tool to pick.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus ioc_compare (or project_get/verify), and no guidance on choosing between the two comparison targets. The description also never says that exactly one of other_ioc / other_project_id should be supplied.

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