diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses no behavioral traits such as read-only safety, permission requirements, failure modes, or cost. What it does describe (the diff categories) is return content, which is already covered by the output schema, so it adds little behavioral value.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the specific diff dimensions. It is appropriately sized, though the clipped colon-list style is slightly terse.

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?

Complexity is low (two flat string params, output schema present so returns need not be explained), but the total absence of parameter meaning and of any usage routing leaves a real gap for an agent deciding when and how to call it.

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 two required parameters (version_a, version_b) are documented nowhere. The description never explains what form a 'version' identifier takes (ID, label, timestamp) or whether ordering matters, leaving the agent unable to populate the call confidently.

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 states a specific comparison operation ('what changed between two versions') and enumerates the diff categories it produces (source ranges, option changes, duration delta), so the agent can tell it is a comparison/diff tool rather than an editor or renderer. It does not name or distinguish any sibling explicitly, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus siblings like overview, query, or get_segment, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the version-comparison entry point.

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