get_text_diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It describes the return format, default filtering behavior, ability to include equal blocks, support for both text and visual comparisons, and explicitly states 'Does not consume credits.' This goes well beyond the minimal requirement.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then details, then usage guidance. Every sentence contributes unique information with no redundancy or filler.

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 having no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return structure and behavior. It covers prerequisites ('finished comparison'), parameter behavior, credit implications, and text vs. visual support, making it complete for an API with 3 well-documented parameters.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of value by explaining the default behavior of only_changed and the use case for setting it to false, but it does not provide deeper semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 identifies the tool's function: fetching block-level text diff of a finished comparison, including specific output details (summary counters, diff blocks, word-level spans). This distinguishes it from siblings like summarize_visual_diff or get_comparison by focusing on exact text changes.

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 clear usage context with 'Best when you need to quote exact text changes' and notes it works for both text and visual comparisons. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for selection.

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