trw_prd_diff

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry full burden. It only states the tool diffs files with a specific focus; it omits whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies anything, required permissions, output format, or side effects. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 concise sentences plus a bullet list. Front-loaded with purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition. Efficient and well-organized.

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?

No output schema and only two parameters. Description lacks output format (e.g., text diff, structured change report), safety information, or prerequisites. Incomplete for an AI agent to fully understand invocation outcomes.

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% for parameter descriptions. Parameter names 'before_path' and 'after_path' imply order but the description does not clarify path format (local, repo, relative) or constraints. No added semantic value beyond names.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Diff two PRD files' with a specific focus on requirements, metrics, and acceptance-gates. Distinguishable from sibling tools like trw_prd_create and trw_prd_validate, though not explicitly differentiated.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' bullets provide two clear scenarios: reviewing changes between versions and auditing evolution. Lacks when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions, but the context is sufficient.

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