diff

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the annotation carries the safety profile. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that the result includes a cross-version address map — but says nothing about pagination behavior or result size, even though limit/cursor exist.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. The phrase 'cross-version address map' is jargon-heavy and unexplained, which slightly reduces immediate comprehension.

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?

For a diff tool with no output schema, the description conveys the shape of the result (alignment plus address map) but omits return format details, pagination semantics, and any differentiator from `compare`. Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 100% with five well-documented parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about `old`/`new` ordering, `collapse_runs`, or cursor usage beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a specific operation (paragraph alignment between two document versions) and an output artifact (a cross-version address map), so the resource and result are clear. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling `compare`, which an agent would plausibly confuse with it.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite a closely related sibling tool (`compare`) existing in the same namespace. The agent is left to infer the selection criteria entirely.

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