tentra

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions what the tool does (compare snapshots) but lacks behavioral details like whether it's read-only, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what output format to expect. For a diff tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, using a single sentence that efficiently lists key comparison aspects without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the tool's scope and outputs.

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 complexity (architectural diffing), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and aspects compared but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, or error handling, which are important for such an operation.

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 parameters 'from_snapshot_id' and 'to_snapshot_id' clearly documented as older and newer snapshot IDs. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('compare', 'diff') and resources ('two snapshots'), listing concrete comparison aspects like files added/removed/modified, symbols, and god-node deltas. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on architectural diffing between commits, unlike tools like 'list_snapshots' or 'analyze_codebase'.

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 usage for comparing snapshots in a commit-based context, suggesting when to use it (for architectural diffs). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, such as whether to use 'list_snapshots' for basic snapshot info instead.

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