file.diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It honestly discloses that the tool is planned, stubbed, requires a history cache, and returns NOT_FOUND until enabled. This is transparent about its current limitations.

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, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose and status. However, it could be slightly more structured with separate status and parameter details.

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 that the tool is planned and stubbed, the description adequately covers its current state, requirements, and expected return value. However, it lacks details about the diff output format or behavior when enabled, and there is no output schema.

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 0% and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (file, vault, toHash, fromHash). The only hint is 'prior content_hash' relating to fromHash, but no details are given about file or vault.

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 explicitly states 'Diff a file against a prior content_hash', which is a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like apply_patch or file.read.

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 notes that the tool is stubbed and requires a history cache, but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apply_edits or apply_patch.

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