Get Fork Diff

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, and the description adds real value by defining diff semantics and one status value ('added'). It does not disclose other status values, result size, or pagination behavior on large forks, so it is helpful but incomplete beyond the annotation.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded ahead of the status clarification. Every clause earns its place.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so at a high level (per-page field diffs, status semantics). Minor gaps around scale/pagination and the full status vocabulary keep it from a 5.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as a fork ID returned by create_fork/list_forks. The description adds nothing specific about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a precise resource and output shape: 'per-field differences between each page in a fork and its live counterpart.' This clearly separates it from get_fork (metadata), list_forks (index), and merge_fork (the mutation), so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Calling it 'the review surface for merging a fork' implicitly tells the agent to use it before merge_fork, which is strong contextual guidance. It stops short of an explicit when/when-not statement or naming merge_fork as the follow-up action.

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