graph_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses what the diff produces but omits side effects, mutation risks, auth requirements, output format, or error handling. Minimal behavioral detail beyond the core operation.

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?

One precise sentence that delivers the primary purpose without fluff. Front-loaded with the core action and outcome.

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 an empty schema with dynamic params, the description does not compensate. It lacks return value details, parameter specification, and usage context, making it insufficient for a complex graph diffing 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?

The schema has zero properties but allows additionalProperties, implying dynamic input. The description says 'between two points in time' but does not specify how to indicate those points (e.g., commit hashes, timestamps) leaving the agent without essential input guidance. Baseline 3 for 0 params is not met because the tool clearly needs arguments.

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's action ('Diff the code graph') and its specific outcome ('added/removed symbols and edges'), making it distinct from siblings like semantic_changelog or search_history.

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 use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., semantic_changelog for human-readable changes). It does not clarify prerequisites like repository state or which time points are acceptable.

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