compare

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 does disclose the return content (exact before/after text and a unified diff), but never states that the operation is non-mutating, whether it needs any access permissions, or whether large diffs are truncated.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the operation, the inputs, and the output format with zero padding. Nothing in it is redundant given there is no title to restate.

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?

A three-required-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage needs more than this. The description leaves the project parameter and the left/right orientation undocumented, which is exactly the information an agent must guess to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. "Two branch heads" hints that left and right are branch identifiers, but it never says which side is the base versus the target, and the required 'project' parameter is not mentioned at all.

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 ("Show") and resource ("differences between two branch heads") with the output shape (before/after text plus unified diff). It reads as a read-only diff operation, which implicitly separates it from merge or write, but it never names a sibling to route against.

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 phrase "between two branch heads" implies the precondition that both endpoints are branch heads, giving some context for use. There is no explicit when-to-use versus branches/history/merge, and no note about what happens if a branch or project does not exist.

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