apidog_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Reports added, removed, and changed endpoints with field-level diffs,' which indicates a read-only analysis function, but it does not explicitly confirm that it makes no changes to Apidog state or mention any permission requirements. 'Compare' implies non-mutating, but this is not stated outright.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and specifies the output. It is concise with no filler or redundancy.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose and output type. However, it does not clarify the spec/specPath mutual exclusivity or the conditional requirement for 'project,' which are schema-documented but could be reinforced in the description. Overall, it is reasonably complete but leaves a few contextual gaps.

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 schema covers all 4 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3 even though the tool description adds no parameter-specific details. The description does not clarify the relationship between 'spec' (JSON object) and 'specPath' (file path) as likely alternative inputs, but the schema already documents each parameter adequately.

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 tool's function: comparing current Apidog state against a provided OpenAPI spec and reporting added, removed, and changed endpoints with field-level diffs. It uses a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('Apidog state' vs 'OpenAPI spec'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like apidog_import_openapi (imports) and apidog_list (lists).

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to identify differences between Apidog and an OpenAPI spec. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the purpose is clear enough to infer usage context. No explicit 'use instead' guidance is given.

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