diff_components

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by enumerating what the diff reports (findings delta, capability changes, risk delta), which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result, then the use case, then the parameter equivalence. No redundancy or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly spends its budget describing the return categories, and source formats are fully covered by the schema plus the scan_component reference. Edge behavior (e.g., no findings, invalid source) is unstated, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a cross-tool semantic rule: both sides accept the same sources as scan_component, clarifying that old and new are symmetric in accepted formats. No format details are duplicated beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb (compare) and resource (two component versions) plus the concrete output categories: new/resolved/changed findings, capability changes, and risk-score delta. It also implicitly separates itself from scan_component by framing the result as a diff rather than a scan.

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?

"Use for upgrade reviews (is the new version riskier than the one already vetted?)" gives a clear context and intent. It does not state when to prefer a plain scan_component over a diff, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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