ui_tree_diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output is 'compact' and 'samples,' hinting at volume, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens with missing or invalid snapshots, any permissions needed, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that might interact with stored snapshots.

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, focused sentence that states the core action and result without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain the meaning of 'compact samples,' how to identify snapshots, what 'fields' refers to, or the role of session_id. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without external knowledge.

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 0% and the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters (limit, fields, session_id, after/before_snapshot_id, after/before_resource_uri). It only vaguely implies that two snapshots are compared, but provides no detail on how to specify them or what each parameter controls. The description adds almost no value beyond the schema's bare 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 action (compare), the resource (two saved ui_tree snapshots), and the output (compact added/removed/changed node samples). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling ui_tree tools that operate on current trees or resource nodes, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies the usage context (comparing saved snapshots) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is no guidance on selecting between this and other snapshot or tree tools, so usage is inferred rather than stated.

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