get_intent_diff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It explains the tool performs a comparison and report, implying no destructive side effects. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or disclose authentication or rate limits, which would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: one for purpose and one for usage. No redundant information, every word adds value.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description adequately implies the tool returns a 'report' of context drift. It covers purpose, timing, and input parameter. Minor gap: no details on output format or structure, but sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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?

The sole parameter 'target_dir' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: comparing saved original intent against code changes to detect context drift. It uses specific verbs like 'compare' and 'report', and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'start_task' by implying this tool is used after task start.

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 explicitly instructs when to call the tool: 'right before telling the developer the work is done.' This provides clear usage guidance with no ambiguity, and the sibling tool context reinforces that this follows start_task.

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