Compare a documentation section's indexed snapshot against its current on-disk bytes to see if it has changed. Returns hashes and unified diff text, with identical=true when in sync.
Unified diff between the indexed snapshot and the current on-disk byte range for a section. Returns hashes + diff text; identical=true when the section is in sync with disk.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | ||
| section_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.118.0v1.100.0v1.100.0v1.99.0v1.66.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations show readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the tool compares the indexed snapshot to the current on-disk byte range and returns a diff indicating sync status. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotation, though it does not detail potential side effects or performance implications.
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 short sentences, front-loading the core purpose and key output details. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary 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 zero parameter descriptions, the description should explain parameters and possibly expected inputs. It lacks this crucial information, leaving the agent unguided despite adequate behavioral disclosure for the read operation.
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%, and the description offers no explanation for the two parameters (repo, section_id). With no compensation, the agent cannot infer what values these parameters expect, severely hindering correct invocation.
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 compares 'indexed snapshot' and 'current on-disk byte range' for a section, returning hashes and diff text, with 'identical=true' when in sync. It specifies the verb (get diff) and resource (section), distinguishing it from related tools like get_section which return metadata or get_section_context.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_section or get_section_context. Usage is implied (e.g., to check sync status) but not stated, and no exclusion criteria or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.