gx3_semantic_diff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that both projects are only read, that neither project is modified, and that a detail CSV is written. This is strong transparency, though the destination/location of the CSV is not specified, leaving a minor gap.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core comparison behavior is in the first sentence, the matching mechanism in the second, the intended use in the third, and side effects in the final sentence. Every sentence adds distinct value without repetition.

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 two string parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors: what it compares, how rungs are matched, what it returns, and that it writes a CSV without modifying inputs. The only notable omission is where the CSV is written and the exact return format, but this remains adequate for invocation.

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%, with both 'old' and 'new' described as 'project folder or .gx3'. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level semantics beyond that, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('two versions of a project rung by rung'), and clearly states the output ('what was added, removed or changed'). It also distinguishes itself from positional diffing by mentioning stable block GUID matching, which helps separate it from simpler diff-like 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 gives clear usage context: 'Use it to review what a revision actually did.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended scenario is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over siblings like gx3_explain_snapshot or gx3_list_commands.

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