svn_diff

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

The description discloses that ignore-EOL is enabled by default for internal diff and that the output returns per-file counts. This adds value beyond the schema, which has no annotations. However, it does not cover all behavioral aspects like output format or authorization.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and adds key behavioral details. Slightly more structure could improve clarity.

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 complexity of SVN diff, the description omits important context such as what 'per-file counts' entails, output format (unified?), and handling of errors. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more guidance.

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 coverage is 50% (2 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds a default for ignoreEol, but does not explain lineLimit or paths beyond what the schema provides. It partially compensates for the low coverage.

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 states 'Run scoped svn diff', which clearly identifies the verb (diff) and resource (SVN). 'Scoped' is somewhat vague, but it distinguishes from other svn tools like svn_log or svn_status.

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 tool versus alternatives like svn_log or svn_status. There is no mention of prerequisites or context-specific usage.

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