diff_draws

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the core behavior: it compares resolved draw state rather than raw commands and lists the compared categories. It doesn't explicitly state return shape or read-only nature, but 'diff' strongly implies a non-mutating comparison.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the operation and its scope, followed by a use-case clause. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 low-complexity, three-parameter tool with complete schema descriptions, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks an explicit statement of the output shape, but the absence of an output schema and the simple diff semantics keep this to a minor gap.

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%, so the schema already documents cmdA, cmdB, and captureId. The description adds context that these are draw commands to compare, but does not need to repeat parameter details; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('structurally diff') and a precise resource ('resolved state of two draw commands'), and enumerates the state components (pipeline, bind groups, vertex/index bindings, draw params). This distinguishes it from single-draw inspectors like get_draw_state.

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?

It gives a concrete scenario: use when a working and broken draw share a pipeline and the difference likely lies in bound resources. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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