diff_requirements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose return categories (added, removed, changed with before/after text, unchanged IDs), which is useful. However, it omits behavioral details such as whether file paths or inline text are supported, how missing IDs are handled, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then efficiently lists the output categories. Every part contributes useful information and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 two nested object parameters and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job of explaining what is returned. However, it does not clarify how to provide the two versions (path vs. text), what counts as 'changed' beyond ID matching, or any edge cases. The schema fills some gaps, but the overall context is not fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameter semantics. It only adds 'by requirement ID', which helps with the comparison key, but does not explain the structure of `before` and `after` or the path/text input modes. The agent must rely entirely on the schema for parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('two versions of a requirements document'), and specifies the comparison key ('by requirement ID'). It also enumerates precise output categories, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like parse_requirements or traceability_matrix.

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 the tool should be used when an agent needs to compare two versions of a requirements document, which is clear enough. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites such as requiring the documents to contain requirement IDs.

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