get_diff

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It adds useful context by stating the record is 'small' and excludes full source and tool logs, setting expectations for response size and content. However, it does not describe return format, error handling, or explicitly confirm read-only behavior. This is partial disclosure, not comprehensive.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get a small audited change record') and followed by a clarifying exclusion. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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 a tool with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It neither explains what the returned record contains nor how the parameters combine (e.g., Is path required for file diffs? What if only task_id is given?). The exclusions help but leave significant gaps for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'task or file', which hints at the two parameters (task_id and path), but does not clarify their relationship, whether path is optional, or how they interact. The schema indicates task_id is required, but the description does not reinforce this or explain file path usage.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving a 'small audited change record' for a task or file. The verb 'Get' and specific resource ('change record') distinguish it from siblings like get_task, which likely retrieves task details. The exclusion clause ('Full source and tool logs are excluded') further narrows the scope.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or contrasts with sibling tools (e.g., get_task for task details). It simply states what it does without context for selection.

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