diff_policy_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares the operation read-only, discloses that it runs an asynchronous cache-diff job with polling, and spells out the timeout (capped 300) and poll interval (capped 30) limits. It stops short of describing failure modes or job-status behavior on timeout, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core operation and the read-only guarantee, then structured into Args and Returns blocks with no filler. Slightly longer than strictly necessary given the output schema already covers returns, but every line carries information.

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 zero annotation coverage and zero schema description coverage, the description fills both gaps: safety profile, async job mechanics, parameter meanings with caps, and a return shape describing status/adom/package/revision/summary keyed by category. An agent has everything needed to invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it does — all five parameters are documented, including the cross-reference to list_adom_revisions for the revision value and the hard caps on timeout and poll_interval that are not visible in the schema. This adds real meaning beyond the raw types and defaults.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Diff a policy package's objects at a past ADOM revision against its CURRENT live state') with the scope pinned to one package. It explicitly distinguishes itself from diff_adom_revision by explaining why it reuses that job rather than duplicating it, so an agent can tell the two siblings apart without opening a schema.

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 gives clear operational context — the revision must come from list_adom_revisions and the comparison is against live state, not another snapshot. It does not state explicit when-not conditions versus diff_adom_revision, but the package-level framing already implies the selection boundary.

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