diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. "Show" implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, which is the key behavioral fact, but it does not disclose whether staged vs unstaged changes are included, whether untracked files appear, or how large diffs are handled. The output schema covers the return shape, so the remaining gap is moderate rather than severe.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the scope qualifier is placed immediately after the core statement rather than buried.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly and understand the result. Only minor behavioral details about diff scope (staged/untracked/truncation) are missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The parenthetical about "your changes so far" does add a small scoping cue about what the diff reflects.

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?

States a specific verb ("Show") and resource ("current git diff of the sandboxed repository") with the scope clarified by the parenthetical "your changes so far." The purpose is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like view_file, search, or bash, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those tools.

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 "your changes so far" implies the intended moment of use (after making edits, to review what changed), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as bash or view_file. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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