Compare Wiki Versions

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds 'Effect: read' which aligns. It goes further by detailing failure modes and required authority, providing valuable context beyond annotations.

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 structured with bullet points and front-loads the purpose, but it is somewhat verbose, especially in the failure handling section. It could be slightly more concise while retaining essential information.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, usage, prerequisites, failure modes, and post-action steps, making it complete for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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 only 25% (one param described). The description does not explicitly detail each parameter beyond their names, but it clarifies the role of projectId (optional, defaults to selected project) and reinforces the use of fromVersion/toVersion as version numbers via the tool's purpose.

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 'Compare two immutable PageVersions as a stable typed block diff,' specifying the action, resources, and output. It distinguishes from sibling tools by highlighting the typed diff nature.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' conditions are provided, including when to avoid using the tool (narrower tool matches, unresolved project scope, user declined). It also lists prerequisites like authenticated API authority and selected project.

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