get_file_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 behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action and does not mention output format, constraints like maxChars, error handling, or read-only nature, leaving significant ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It clearly communicates the core purpose in minimal space.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, this description is too thin to fully support tool invocation. It does not explain what the diff contains, the significance of version parameters, or the maxChars limit, and it does not resolve overlap with sibling tools.

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 33%, and the description itself adds no parameter details. The schema documents 'from' and 'filePath' but the description does not explain the roles of 'to', 'appName', 'maxChars', or 'packageName', nor compensate for the low coverage.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'Upgrade Helper diff for one changed file', which effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_upgrade_diff that likely handle a broader diff scope.

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 phrase 'for one changed file' implies this is for a specific file diff, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_upgrade_diff or list_changed_files. Context is implied rather than stated.

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