diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavior: output is truncated and the full diff is written to disk. That is valuable and non-obvious. It still omits whether the job must be finished, what happens if it is still running, and whether large diffs have other limits.

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 short sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the truncation caveat in a parenthetical, so every clause earns its place. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but not padded.

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, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description should compensate and does not. The truncation/disk note is the only substantive addition; an agent still lacks the job lifecycle context and parameter semantics needed to invoke this reliably.

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% and neither of the two parameters (job_id, max_chars) is mentioned in the description. The truncation note loosely gestures at max_chars, but it never explains that max_chars controls the truncation or gives a default/format for either parameter.

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?

It identifies a verb (diff) and a resource (the job's work) plus an output caveat, so the agent knows it returns a diff. However it never names what a 'job' is or which sibling produces one, so differentiation from tools like result, report, or review is left to inference.

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 on when to call this versus alternatives such as result, report, or status, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a completed job). Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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