get_diff

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

The description discloses conditional behavior (returns different data depending on readiness), which adds value. However, it lacks information on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return format. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it is only partially transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys the core action and an important conditional. Every word serves a purpose, and there is 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?

Given the tool's single parameter and lack of output schema, the description is mostly sufficient but leaves ambiguity about what 'diff evidence' and 'structured availability and watcher evidence' mean. Additional context about the conditions for each return type would improve completeness.

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 100% with a brief description for 'task_id'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage but adds no extra value.

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 verb 'read' and resource 'task diff evidence', establishing a specific purpose. It adds nuance by describing an alternative return when evidence is not ready. While it distinguishes from most siblings, it could be more precise about what 'diff evidence' entails.

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 'safe_diff_summary' or 'get_task_log_tail'. The description implies it is used to check readiness, but does not specify conditions or provide exclusions.

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