Diff Snapshots

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that the diff is semantic and focuses on node/edge changes, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose output format, limits, or what 'semantic' entails, so it only partially extends beyond annotations.

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 that says exactly what the tool does with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for a simple read-only tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and strong annotations, the description is adequate but not thorough. It mentions the high-level return (semantic node/edge changes) but does not define the output structure or explain the optional project parameter, which would be helpful without an output schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so parameters are already fully documented. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema—it merely refers to 'two snapshots,' which maps directly to snapshot_id_a and snapshot_id_b. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb (compare) and resource (snapshots), and specifies the output (semantic node/edge changes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_snapshot or list_snapshots, which have different purposes.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_node_history or what_changed. The context signal shows many related tools, but the description does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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