get_block_diffs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the dependency on history_root readability, the failure condition when history is inaccessible, that before/after text is sanitized, and that max_text_length truncates long text. This is strong behavioral disclosure beyond the bare tool name.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose, applicable scenarios, differences from the sibling, caveats, and arguments. It front-loads the main purpose and every sentence adds value, making it efficient without being bloated.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, zero annotation coverage, and no schema-level parameter descriptions, the description adequately covers selection criteria, invocation parameters, key caveats, and return intent. The output schema is present, so detailed return-value documentation is not required here.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully by documenting every parameter: start_time and end_time formats, default values for limit/history_root/max_text_length, and the truncation semantics of max_text_length. It adds meaningful meaning beyond the raw JSON schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: query modified content blocks in a time range and return before/after comparisons. The applicable scenarios (auditing specific block changes and needing change types/diff statistics) further clarify its purpose, and it explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_block_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 explicit applicable scenarios and directly differentiates this tool from get_block_changes, noting that it reads historical snapshots, returns before/after text with diff statistics, and is heavier while depending on /history. This gives an agent clear criteria for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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