inkbolt_session_diff

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations do not: rendering uses immutable captured states and the database read lock is released first, implying concurrent reads are safe. It does not mention the cost or effect of compare_pixels.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core operation is stated first. The second sentence is terse to the point of being cryptic about a lock, but nothing is wasted.

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 7-parameter tool with 29% schema coverage and a preview sibling, the description is too thin: it omits usage routing, revision-range semantics, and the pixel-comparison option. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the input-side gaps remain substantial.

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 only 29% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. session_id, from_revision, to_revision and especially compare_pixels (a non-obvious pixel-diff flag defaulting to false) carry no explanation in either the schema or the description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Compare two committed session revisions', and adds scope ('including saved resource bindings'). The word 'committed' implicitly distinguishes it from inkbolt_session_diff_preview, but that sibling is never named, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance. The 'committed' qualifier hints that preview/working-tree revisions belong to inkbolt_session_diff_preview, but the agent must infer this — no alternative is named and no prerequisite (e.g. needing two existing revisions) is stated.

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