branch_diff

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the output but lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error conditions, or permissions required. Does not mention if it has side effects or what happens with non-existent branches.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. Purpose stated first, followed by output details. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, description covers the main output categories. However, it could be more explicit about the return structure or error handling, but is adequate given low complexity and high schema coverage.

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 description adds minimal extra meaning. It does not clarify defaults or valid values beyond the schema's description of branch_a defaulting to current branch. Baseline 3 appropriate as description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the tool shows differences between two branches, specifying output includes entities and relations unique or common to both. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like branch_list or diff_timerange.

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?

Description implies use for comparing branches but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or context provided for when diff_timerange might be more appropriate.

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