Mooring

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It adds value by specifying the output format ('Unified diff'), but lacks disclosure on error behavior (invalid refs, non-repo paths), whether the operation is read-only (implied but not stated), or performance characteristics for large repositories.

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 efficiently structured with a one-sentence purpose followed by an Args block. No filler text is present. The Args block is necessary given the lack of schema descriptions, so it earns its place despite the parameter listing.

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 presence of an output schema (so return values need not be described) and the parameter documentation in the description text, the definition is minimally complete. However, it lacks a title (null) and omits behavioral details like error conditions or parameter interdependencies that would help an agent invoke it correctly.

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 compensates by documenting all four parameters in the 'Args' block. It adds semantic meaning (e.g., 'Starting reference' for from_ref) and notes the default for 'staged', which is not inferable from the schema titles alone.

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 identifies the tool generates a 'Unified diff' (specific format) and identifies the comparison targets (refs, staged, working tree). However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an action verb and does not explicitly differentiate from 'repo_status' (which shows change status but not content).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this versus 'repo_status' or 'repo_log', nor does it explain the interaction between 'staged' and ref parameters (e.g., are they mutually exclusive?). The description only lists parameters without usage context.

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