document_diff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and default behavior. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what permissions are needed, what the output contains (aside from implying a diff), or any side effects. The existence of an output schema is positive but not reflected in the description.

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, which is concise. However, it is too brief for the tool's complexity; it lacks important context. Conciseness is valued, but not at the expense of completeness. A tool with three parameters and no annotations should have more detail.

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, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it still fails to cover input parameter details, behavioral traits, and usage context. The description is incomplete for an agent to reliably select and invoke this tool, especially among many document-related siblings.

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%, meaning the schema has no parameter descriptions. The description only adds semantics for after_revision_id (default behavior). It does not explain doc_id or before_revision_id beyond their names. For a tool with three parameters, this is insufficient.

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 uses the verb 'diff' and specifies 'two revisions', clearly indicating the tool compares document revisions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like document_read_chunk or document_apply_edit. However, it does not clarify what 'diff' means in this context (e.g., textual diff, structural diff), which slightly reduces clarity.

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 a specific usage note: 'If after_revision_id is omitted, compare with latest.' This tells the agent how to use the optional parameter but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., document_validate, document_outline) or when not to use it. No explicit exclusion criteria are given.

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