explain_diff

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that chunks are AST-aligned (not raw lines), and lists the return fields (path, lines, snippet, kind, change). No hidden behaviors omitted.

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?

Four sentences with no redundancy. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: purpose, usage, advantage, output. Front-loaded with key 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 no output schema and only 2 params, the description covers most key aspects: what it returns, when to use, and a core differentiator (AST chunking). Could mention pagination or error cases but not necessary for basic use.

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 coverage is 50% (ref has description, max_chunks has none). Description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond what schema provides, especially for max_chunks. No mention of parameter constraints or defaults.

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 returns AST-aligned chunks from a diff at a given ref, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_repo. It explicitly contrasts with git show, providing a specific verb and resource.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (e.g., 'what does this commit do?') and provides a concrete alternative to avoid ('Bash: git show'). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use cases but gives strong positive guidance.

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