Compare two nodes

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

Description says 'Read-only' which complements readOnlyHint: true and adds the default behavior of returning only differing values. The return object structure is disclosed. No contradiction with annotations, and no hidden side effects beyond what is implied.

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 a clear flow: operation + default behavior, return structure, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and the distinction from the key sibling. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (path_a, path_b, only_diff with default). Description adds no extra parameter-level information beyond referring to 'by default', so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool diffs parameters of two nodes and returns differing values by default. Includes the exact return structure and explicitly mentions it operates on live nodes, distinguishing it from diff_snapshots.

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?

Gives a concrete use case (aligning settings across similar operators) and explicitly contrasts with diff_snapshots (whole-network snapshots over time). This provides clear when-to-use guidance and naming of an alternative.

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