turingmind_analyze_diff

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions returning an auto-generated plan with intent, risk level, and suggested specs, but does not specify whether the tool has side effects (e.g., reads vs writes), required permissions, or idempotency. The output description is partial.

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 two sentences, front-loads the action and output, and contains no fluff. Every sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose and output.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a high-level overview of the output but lacks details on expected return format, constraints, or prerequisites. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for each parameter; it restates 'git diff' and 'Repository' but does not enrich the understanding of format or usage.

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 analyzes a git diff and auto-generates an EditPlan. It uses a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('git diff'), and the output is explicitly defined. The context of enabling continuous SDD distinguishes it from siblings like turingmind_apply_edit or turingmind_get_edit_reasoning.

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 implies usage when a diff is available and a plan is needed, stating 'where plans are inferred from changes rather than requiring upfront planning.' However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternative tools for scenarios like already having a plan.

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