ghidriff_function_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates the expected deliverable and the conditional nature of the diff ('if modified'), and 'Explain' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-mutating, what prerequisites exist, or what happens when the named function is not found.

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 compact sentence front-loads the action and scope, then lists the returned content with a useful condition. There is no filler, and every phrase contributes information.

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?

The output schema and full parameter documentation reduce the burden, but with no annotations and many sibling tools, the description leaves the relationship to jobs/pdiff files implicit. It is minimally viable but would benefit from stating that it inspects a function from an existing diff and how to choose between job_id and json_path.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond naming the resource ('one changed function'), so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Explain'), a clear resource ('one changed function'), and enumerates the contents (metadata, code, code diff). It is understandable in isolation, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like ghidriff_read_report or ghidriff_search_functions.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this when a single changed function needs detailed inspection. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over sibling tools, nor does it mention how job_id/json_path should be supplied or when one is preferred over the other.

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