okf_diff_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a read-only diff-like operation and a temporal baseline, but it does not explain what output is returned, whether a bundle must be explicitly supplied, what happens if the bundle is null, or any side effects.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. It is concise and readable, though the brevity comes at the cost of needed 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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too incomplete to guide correct invocation in an unambiguous way. Missing parameter semantics, return format, and relationship to the bundle loading workflow leave significant gaps for an agent.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single 'bundle' parameter. The description only mentions 'the bundle' in passing, giving slight context that the parameter likely identifies the loaded baseline, but it does not explain valid values, source, or behavior when omitted.

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 states a clear purpose: reporting changes on disk relative to the loaded bundle. It is specific enough for an agent to understand the core function, though it does not distinguish itself from related okf_* tools or explicitly use an imperative verb like 'show' or 'get'.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus any of the sibling tools such as okf_related_tool, okf_impact_tool, or okf_doctor_tool. The description implies a use case for checking disk changes but provides no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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