review.collect_diff

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. However, the only behavioral detail it provides (base 'main' converts to 'origin/main') is already in the schema's base parameter description, adding no new transparency. It does not mention side effects, return format, or error conditions.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary function and includes an important conversion rule. Every word is functional, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It states the core operation but omits usage context, parameter details for half the parameters, and specifics about the return value, leaving the agent without enough information to fully understand when and how to invoke the tool.

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 50%, so the description should compensate. It clarifies the relationship between base and head through the git diff syntax, but fails to explain contextLines and provides no additional meaning beyond the schema for repoPath. The undocumented head parameter is somewhat addressed, but contextLines remains unexplained.

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 the tool collects and returns git diff(base...head), specifying the resource and action. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling review tools, but the function is distinct enough that an agent can infer its purpose.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like review.make_prompt or review.save. The description only states what it does, not the appropriate context or criteria for selection.

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