suite_doc_drift

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists the return fields but does not mention side effects, idempotency, authentication needs, or whether the operation is destructive. This leaves significant ambiguity.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and adds relevant detail about the return shape. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool has nested parameters with no schema details and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It lists the return fields, but the input parameters remain underspecified, requiring the agent to infer the document structure.

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 schema has two object parameters ('before', 'after') with 0% description coverage. The description identifies them as document versions but offers no details on required fields or structure. For nested objects, this is insufficient.

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 between two versions of the same Suite document, specifying the verb 'diff' and the resource 'Suite document versions'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on version comparison, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 mentions the tool mirrors the DriftReport shape from aeo-validator-service, providing some context but no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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