scan_diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool produces a structural diff of functions, but lacks details on output format, requirements (e.g., git repository), side effects, or limitations. It is vague about what 'condensed skeletons' entails.

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 concise: two sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding a direct usage guideline. Every sentence serves a clear role 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 no output schema, no annotations, and 3 parameters (one required, two with defaults), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'condensed skeletons' means, how to interpret results, or prerequisites like needing a git repository. The 'budget' parameter is mysterious.

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 input schema has 0% parameter descriptions, and the description adds no meaning to the three parameters (directory, ref, budget). It does not explain their roles or defaults, leaving the agent to guess or rely on defaults without context.

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 performs a structural diff against a git ref, identifying new/changed/removed functions with condensed skeletons. It explicitly distinguishes itself from git diff, making its purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 includes an explicit directive to use this tool instead of git diff for review and 'what changed' questions, providing clear context. However, it does not compare with sibling tools like find_divergence, which could be a close alternative.

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