diff_local_component

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that refresh fast-forwards clean local files from server while keeping edits. Also mentions verdict returns counts only. Does not detail network usage or permissions, but main behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Description is a single sentence that conveys the main purpose and two key modes. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy, though slightly dense. Every part adds 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?

No output schema, so description must inform about return values. It describes verdict mode output ('verdict + changed-line counts') but does not describe normal diff output (presumably unified diff). Missing details on context_lines effect and overall structure. Adequate but incomplete.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds meaning beyond schema: clarifies that path behavior differs by type (file→diff, root→summary), explains verdict and refresh modes, and usage of compare_to. This adds value to the schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool diffs local edits vs remote or a compare_to root, with specific modes for verdict and refresh. The verb 'diff' and resources are explicit, and it distinguishes from siblings (no direct diff sibling).

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?

Description provides guidance for different parameter values (verdict=True for status-only, refresh=True for fast-forward, compare_to for offline diff). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare to siblings, but context shows no similar tool.

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