agent-tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully adds critical behavioral context: the encoding auto-detection capability, the 50,000-line limit constraint, and the specific output format (unified diff) which compensates for the missing output schema.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: sentence 1 establishes core purpose, sentence 2 adds encoding behavior, sentence 3 states operational limits. Information is front-loaded and appropriately dense.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately compensates by describing the return format ('unified diff') and key constraints (line limit, encoding). It covers the essential information needed for an agent to predict behavior, though it could mention error conditions (e.g., missing files).

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 description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description does not add parameter-specific syntax or semantic details beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it doesn't explain that file paths must be absolute, though the schema does).

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 specific action ('Compares'), resource ('two files'), and output format ('unified diff'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'read' (simple viewing), 'checksum' (hash comparison), and 'patch' (applying changes).

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 no guidance on when to select this tool versus alternatives like 'checksum' (for integrity verification) or 'read' (for viewing content). There are no 'when-not-to-use' exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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