plainhub_diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it does disclose the most security-relevant trait: the saved token is handed to https://app.plainhub.dev unless noAuth is true, revealing both the destination domain and a side effect. It also implies a browser-opening action rather than a pure data read. It leaves gaps around authentication requirements and failure behavior for an invalid SHA or repo.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by usage context, a security note, and a compact example — no filler sentences. The JSON example is somewhat redundant with the schema but earns its place by showing a realistic combination.

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?

For a four-parameter browser-handoff tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, timing, the token-handoff behavior, and an example. What remains unstated — auth prerequisites and error behavior — is modest given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, and the description only echoes them via an example object. The example illustrates that path filters to a single file, adding marginal meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource — showing what a commit changed in PlainHub's diff view — so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It is distinguishable from generic siblings like plainhub_open or plainhub_browse, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

"Use it after a commit when the user wants to review the change in the browser" gives a clear trigger condition and makes the browser-review intent explicit. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming a sibling (e.g. plainhub_open) as the alternative for non-diff browsing.

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