sc_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the primary read action and does not disclose output format, path requirements, error behavior, or whether the diff covers working changes versus committed changes. This is a minimal statement with no added behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words or filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 fully documented parameter, this is minimally viable. However, there is no output schema and no description of the return value or edge cases, leaving some ambiguity about what exactly the tool produces and under what conditions it is valid.

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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter ('path' with description 'File path to diff'), so the description does not need to add much. The phrase 'modified file' adds slight contextual meaning to the parameter, but no format, absolute/relative path, or other semantic details are supplied.

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 specifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('the diff for a modified file'), and the domain ('in source control'). It distinguishes this from sibling source-control tools like sc_status, sc_checkout, and sc_revert, which serve different purposes.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusion cases such as checking status first or behavior for unmodified files. Usage context is only implied by the phrase 'for a modified file.'

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