mind_diff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that without memory_id the diff includes added/changed/removed memories with content hunks and links, and with memory_id it returns just that page's diff. This gives a clear mental model of the operation's output, though it doesn't mention error conditions or explicitly confirm side-effect-free behavior.

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 sentences: the first states the core purpose with an illustrative example, and the second concisely enumerates behaviors for both usage modes. No wasted words; it is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and the two operational modes, and the output schema handles return value details. It would be slightly more complete with an explicit read-only note, but the diff semantics make that clear. Essentially self-sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 already documents all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining what the refs can be (branch names, commit ids, timestamps) and clarifying the effect of memory_id on the diff scope, going slightly beyond the schema's 'diff a single memory instead of the whole graph.'

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 diffs the user's mind between two refs, specifying ref types (branch names, commit ids, timestamps) and the scope of output. It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on diffing memory state, and further clarifies distinct behaviors for whole-graph vs. single-memory diffing.

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 provides a concrete usage example ('what changed in my memory since last week?') and explains when to use the optional memory_id parameter (single page diff) vs. not (whole graph). However, it does not explicitly compare to similar sibling tools like memory_history or mind_log, nor state when not to use it.

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