data_text_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 the operational modes (lines/chars/words) which is useful behavioral information, but it does not describe the output format, return behavior, or any constraints (e.g., size limits). The tool appears read-only, so risk is lower, but transparency is incomplete.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently covers the main modes. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It only states the diff comparison and modes, leaving the output format undisclosed. This makes the description incomplete for an agent to know what result to expect.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'mode' parameter with its enum options, which adds value. However, text_a and text_b are not described, though their purpose is fairly obvious from the context. The description partially compensates but not fully.

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 as text/code diff comparison (文本/代码差异比较) and lists the available modes (lines/chars/words). This specific verb+resource makes it distinct from sibling tools, none of which perform diffing.

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 when comparing two texts or code snippets but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. It does not mention any sibling tools or contextual conditions.

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