checklist_diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses key behaviors: case/whitespace-insensitive matching, duplicate detection, and output of missing items in both directions. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent accurate expectations. It doesn't mention side effects explicitly, but 'compare' implies 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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clear Args block for parameters. No wasted words; each 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 a simple 2-parameter tool, the description effectively explains purpose, behavior, and usage. The output schema exists so return values are covered separately. It doesn't address error cases but nothing indicates they are critical; overall it's a complete description.

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 has no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description fully compensates. It defines each parameter with examples: 'a: First checklist name, e.g. agent-containment.' and clarifies that names are used, not IDs. This provides meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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's function: 'Compare two checklists and show coverage gaps and duplicated controls.' It explicitly mentions the matching logic (normalized control text, not item ID) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like checklist_list and checklist_get.

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?

It provides context for when to use it: 'Use this to keep the catalog maintainable as it grows.' This indicates a maintenance/diff scenario. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection among siblings.

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