diffchunk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: auto-loads diff files with optimal defaults if not loaded, requires absolute paths (relative paths will fail), and handles large files to avoid context limits. It also implies this is a read-only operation for analysis. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, performance characteristics, or output format details, leaving some gaps in behavioral context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Subsequent sentences add necessary guidelines and warnings without redundancy. However, some phrasing could be slightly tightened (e.g., 'This tool provides the roadmap for systematic chunk-by-chunk analysis' is somewhat verbose), preventing a perfect score.

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 the tool's complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, critical constraints, and behavioral aspects like auto-loading. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe the return values (e.g., structure of the overview), which is a minor gap. The description compensates well but isn't fully exhaustive.

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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'absolute_file_path'. The description adds meaningful context: 'CRITICAL: You must use an absolute directory path - relative paths will fail.' This clarifies the parameter's requirement beyond the schema's basic description. However, it doesn't provide examples or format specifics, so it doesn't fully elevate the score to 5.

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 purpose: 'Get an overview of all chunks in a diff file with file mappings and summaries.' It specifies the verb ('Get an overview'), resource ('chunks in a diff file'), and key outputs ('file mappings and summaries'). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing this is for initial overview rather than detailed analysis (e.g., vs. 'get_chunk' for specific chunks or 'find_chunks_for_files' for filtering).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this as your first step to understand the scope and structure of changes before diving into specific chunks.' It also mentions alternatives: 'If using tracking documents to resume analysis, use this to orient yourself to remaining work.' It includes critical exclusions: 'DO NOT attempt to read the diff file directly as it will exceed context limits.' This covers when, when-not, and alternatives comprehensively.

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