emacs_diff_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'Get a summary'. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what the return format is, whether it opens a buffer, or whether it has any side effects. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, but little else is disclosed.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The essential information is front-loaded and every word contributes to meaning.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple comparison tool with fully documented parameters, but it leaves gaps around output format and usage context. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent would benefit from knowing what the summary looks like and when to prefer this over emacs_ediff_* tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters already have meaning in the schema. The description adds no further parameter details, but that is acceptable given the high schema coverage; a baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get a summary') and resource ('differences between two files or buffers'), making the core function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like emacs_ediff_files or emacs_git_diff, but the word 'summary' implies a non-interactive, non-git-specific comparison.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling ediff or git diff tools. The description does not mention whether this is appropriate for quick summaries while ediff is for interactive comparison, or any other selection criteria.

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