fscp_diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (list of edits and overwritten archive records) but does not state whether it is read-only or has side effects. It also omits any mention of permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. The lack of a readOnly hint makes its safety profile unclear.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core function ('What has been accumulated in the session') and elaborates concisely. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description adequately summarizes the output but fails to provide essential context: parameter explanations, usage timing, and any operational constraints. Given it has three parameters and no annotations, the agent lacks critical information to call it correctly. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing input guidance.

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 does not explain any of the three parameters (handle, limit, offset). It mentions 'session' and 'edit list' but gives no guidance on what handle refers to or how limit/offset affect output. The agent is left to infer parameter semantics entirely from names, which is insufficient.

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's function: showing accumulated session edits and which archive records will be overwritten on save. It uses a specific resource ('session edits', 'archive records') and implies a verb ('shows'). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but among the fscp* family it is unique in focus, so it distinguishes itself implicitly.

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 implies a use case: checking session changes before saving (mentions 'when saving'). It gives context but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fscp_info or fscp_save. No exclusions or alternative tools are named, so the agent must infer timing.

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