diff_missing_urls

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses a read-only one-way diff and the direction of comparison. It doesn't mention file formats or error behavior, but the core behavior is transparent enough for an agent to understand the operation.

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 sentence with no filler; the action, resource, and comparison criterion are all present and front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 two-path diff tool with an output schema, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly: inputs are paths to two exports and the result is the set of URLs missing from the newer one. Minor gaps around export format and output ordering remain but are not blocking for selection or invocation.

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 description maps old_export_path to the old library export and new_export_path to the newer one, and adds that the content involves IMDb title URLs. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain expected file format, URL representation, or path semantics beyond the parameter names.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource: 'List IMDb title URLs' with a precise comparison condition (present in old export, missing from newer). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_duplicate_filenames, which compare filenames, and the queue/indexer tools, which operate on different resources.

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?

Clearly implies when to use it: when you have an old and a new library export and want to find IMDb title URLs that disappeared between them. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but no sibling offers the same diff behavior, so the context is sufficiently clear.

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