Inventory diff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context by stating it diffs two commits and shows added/removed nodes and edges. It does not contradict annotations, making the behavior 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function followed by usage guidance. Every sentence is valuable and there is no redundancy or wasted words.

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?

For a diff tool with no output schema, the description explains what the diff shows (added/removed nodes and edges). It could mention output format or limits, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 clear descriptions for all three parameters (projectId defaults to configured project, fromSha is baseline, toSha is candidate). The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('diff'), the resource ('inventory commits'), and the scope ('added/removed nodes and edges'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like inventory_get and inventory_findings by specifying the diffing of commits.

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?

Explicit usage context is provided: 'Use before merging a PR that touches inventory.yaml.' While it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, the context is clear and helps the agent decide when to invoke.

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