explain_config_diff

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden and does it well: it discloses determinism ('Deterministic — no model call'), privacy ('nothing leaves the machine'), preprocessing ('volatile lines stripped, save-stamp noise filtered'), and output behavior ('grouped by config section, each tagged with a risk level and why it matters'). This goes far beyond a simple 'explains diff' statement.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every clause adds value: platform coverage, noise filtering, grouping, risk tagging, determinism, and data locality. No filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers the essential behavioral context an agent needs: input domain, supported formats, processing quirks, output shape, and privacy/determinism guarantees. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail the return structure, and the provided text is sufficiently complete for this moderately complex tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so parameters are bare names. The description compensates by clarifying that 'before' and 'after' are full config snapshots and by listing vendor-specific formats that map to the 'vendor' parameter. It does not define 'device' explicitly, but the overall context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Explain what changed between two network device config snapshots, in plain English.' It enumerates the supported platform formats and states the core output (grouped changes, risk levels), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like explain_firewall_change or sanitize_config.

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 makes the intended use clear: comparing two config snapshots and getting a plain-English explanation. It lists supported vendors/formats, giving an agent concrete criteria for when to select this tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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