ybiz_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that removed items 'will be closed in Yandex', which hints at potential impact but does not clarify whether the tool itself executes changes or only reports them. It also omits details about read-only nature, permissions, or side effects.

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 with zero wasted words. It front-loads the purpose ('What the feed will change relative to baseline') and lists the output categories succinctly. Structure is exemplary.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) and the description already mentions the key output categories. However, it does not explain what 'baseline' refers to, how the workspace parameter influences the result, or whether the tool actually applies changes or merely reports them. For a simple diff tool this is adequate but leaves some operational details ambiguous.

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 includes a single optional parameter 'workspace' with no description and 0% schema coverage. The description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent without guidance on how to set it or what values are acceptable. Since the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 computes a diff of the feed relative to baseline, listing added, removed, and changed items. It uses a specific verb ('diff') and resource ('feed vs baseline'), and the categories are explicit. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the tool name and purpose make it distinct enough.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ybiz_validate or ybiz_build. It simply states what the tool does without any context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or when it would be inappropriate.

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