get_diff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that a diff is generated, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, mention any permissions, describe the output format, or note edge cases. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters, both fully documented in the schema, and no output schema. The description sufficiently explains the core functionality for a diff tool. However, it does not mention the return value or any limitations (e.g., only works within the same session), which could be considered a minor gap.

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 100% for the two parameters, with each having a clear description ('ID of the first edit' and 'ID of the second edit'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb 'Generate a diff' with a clear resource ('two edit versions') and states the purpose ('to see what changed'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rollback_to_version or restore_file_snapshot, which perform state changes rather than comparisons.

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 implies usage for comparing edit versions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. The purpose makes it obvious for diff scenarios, but there is no context about prerequisites or what distinguishes it from related list/history tools.

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