gx3_semantic_diff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does mention the granularity (rung-level) and the matching key (GUID), but it omits whether the operation is read-only, how output is formatted, or any required permissions or context. This leaves significant gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key information. There is no unnecessary padding; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain the return value or how to interpret the diff results. It also lacks context about prerequisites or operational details, making it incomplete for a two-parameter tool.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema ('New project folder or .gx3' and 'Old project folder or .gx3'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 does a 'Rung-level diff between two projects' and specifies the matching mechanism 'by stable block GUID.' It uses a specific verb (diff) and resource (projects), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, none of which are diff tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit 'use this when...' language. The purpose implies usage, but the description fails to give contextual direction.

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