diff_against_disk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the tool is read-only with no side effects, auth, or rate limits, and details the possible statuses and return contents on divergence, including what is NOT returned.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, statuses/return details, contrast with get_diff, read-only note, and usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, behavior, return values, statuses, usage context, and the follow-up action, leaving no significant gaps.

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% (file_id is described as 'File ID'). The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high coverage and single simple parameter.

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 purpose: 'Diagnose drift between one file's disk content and its FTS index.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `get_diff` (full diffs) and `refresh_index` (fix).

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when search results look stale; if status is `diverged` or `no_index_row`, run `refresh_index` to fix.' It also contrasts with `get_diff` to clarify when not to use it.

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