repo_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning whether it's a read-only operation, how it handles untracked files, or what happens when there are no changes. This leaves the agent uncertain about side effects and edge cases.

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, well-structured sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any filler or redundancy. It is appropriate in size and front-loaded with the core action.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic action but leaves important contextual gaps. It does not specify the scope of 'all changes' (staged vs. unstaged, untracked files) or potential error conditions, making it only minimally complete for real-world usage.

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?

The input schema has one parameter, workspace_id, but neither the schema nor the description explains its meaning or usage. The description does not even mention the parameter, so the agent must infer that workspace_id identifies the target workspace from the name alone. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate.

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 function: 'Get the unified diff of all changes in the working directory.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource ('unified diff') and scope ('all changes in the working directory'), distinguishing it from sibling repo tools like repo_commit or repo_checkout.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to review all uncommitted changes in the working directory. It differentiates by scope (all changes vs. specific files) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would have made it a 5.

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