rush_api_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only detection operation ('Detect'), but it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or any behavioral nuances beyond the core action. It does not disclose return format (though an output schema exists) or failure conditions, leaving the agent to infer safety.

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, clear sentence with no waste. It front-loads the verb and resource, and the phrase 'against base Git ref' efficiently conveys the key parameter context. This is a model of conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, an output schema available), the description is largely adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does and implies how to use it. However, it omits any guidance on when to use this tool over other API-related tools in the large sibling set, and it does not mention any prerequisites or limitations. Still, for a straightforward detection tool, this is acceptable.

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 0% (no descriptions in the input schema), so the description must compensate. It mentions 'against base Git ref', which clarifies that the 'base' parameter is a Git ref, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explicitly explain that 'base' is optional or describe its default behavior beyond what the schema already shows, so the added value is modest.

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's specific purpose: detecting breaking public API changes against a base Git ref. It uses a specific verb ('Detect') and a specific resource ('breaking public API changes'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like rush_tui_diff (UI diff) and rush_db_drift (database drift) by focusing on API compatibility.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to check for breaking API changes against a Git ref), but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. Given the large sibling set, this lack of explicit exclusions leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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