diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses the return shape (one entry per changed definition, the change categories, the definitions each change reaches, the forced version bump) and notes equivalence to `renyi index --diff`. It does not mention auth, permissions, or rate limits, but for a read-style diff that is a minor gap.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and every subsequent clause adds information rather than filler. It is dense and heavily nested with parentheses, which costs some readability, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values, and it does so thoroughly (changed definitions, change categories, reached definitions, version bump). An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies what a 'saved map' is (output of `renyi index --json` or project_map with `json`) and gives concrete git revision examples (HEAD, v1.2.0) beyond the schema's generic wording.

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 verb and resource: it computes what changed in the served project since a base, and it enumerates the exact output (one entry per changed definition, the changes, reached definitions, forced version bump). There is no ambiguity about what the tool produces versus a sibling like project_map or definition.

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?

It explains how to supply the base (saved map file or git revision) but never states when to reach for diff versus alternatives such as check, project_map, or definition. Usage is implied by the tool's obvious diff semantics rather than stated.

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