re_diff

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must disclose side effects and return behavior. It only states diff returns changed offsets and explains the values flag; dump and emulate return/side-effect behavior, snapshot prerequisites, and error cases are absent.

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 compact line that front-loads the high-level purpose and then encodes each op's signature with required vs optional markers. No filler words; every element contributes.

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?

With 14 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema/annotations, the description omits output formats for dump/emulate, snapshot label lifecycle, and prerequisites. It gives signatures but not enough surrounding context for reliable invocation.

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 baseline applies; the schema already documents each parameter's purpose/limits. The description adds operation-grouping and shorthand but no substantial parameter semantic beyond what schema properties provide.

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 names three concrete operations (dump/diff/emulate) with their key arguments, so the agent can tell this is a snapshot/diff/emulation tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling re_vm/re_disasm, so it loses the top score.

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?

It implies when each op should be used (dump for snapshots, diff for comparing, emulate for execution) and marks optional parameters with '?'. It never states when not to use this tool or names alternatives, so a capable agent would still need to infer context.

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