get_upgrade_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, but it only states the basic output and filtering option. It does not mention that the diff may be truncated by the maxChars parameter (default 120000), nor does it describe any side effects, permissions, or output formatting. The word 'full' is present but the schema indicates output size is constrained, which could mislead.

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 sentence of 11 words, making it extremely concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It contains no redundant information or fluff, scoring high on efficiency, though at the cost of completeness.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is inadequate for understanding the full scope of the tool. It doesn't clarify what the diff contains, how it relates to the sibling tools, or any constraints like the maxChars limit. This is a significant gap for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 17% (only 'from' has a description), so the description must compensate. It explains the 'platform' parameter ('optionally filtered by platform'), but gives no meaning for 'to', 'appName', 'maxChars', or 'packageName'. Agents would have to infer the purpose of these parameters from defaults and types, which is insufficient.

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 the specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as the 'full Upgrade Helper diff', clearly indicating the tool's output. It also mentions optional platform filtering, which is a key capability, but does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like list_changed_files or summarize_upgrade.

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 no information about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any contexts where get_upgrade_diff is preferred over get_file_diff or list_changed_files, nor does it exclude any use cases. This leaves the agent without guidance for tool selection.

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