diff_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds little beyond the operation itself; it does not explain side effects, large-state capture implications, or output behavior, but it does not contradict annotations either.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every word contributes to defining the core operation.

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?

Despite an output schema, this is an 11-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and only a one-line description. The required parameters are inferable from names, but the many optional parameters and their behavioral effects are left entirely unexplained.

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 0%, and the description only indirectly maps 'two calls' to reference_call and source_call. Eleven parameters exist, including timeout, max_bytes, keep_images, ignore_added, source_trace, api, and extra_args, none of which receive any explanatory value from the description.

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 states a specific verb ('capture and compare') and a specific resource ('complete retracer state') at two call points. This clearly distinguishes it from single-state utilities like dump_state and from trace/image diff siblings.

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 gives no guidance on when to use diff_state versus siblings like diff_traces, diff_images, or dump_state. It does not state when this tool is preferred or what conditions make it the right choice.

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