diff-template

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

The description discloses the tool's behavior: it diffs and reports match, missing, or drift with unified diff snippets, which covers its core operation. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but it omits side effects (e.g., read-only nature), authentication requirements, or limits, resulting in moderate transparency.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences clearly state the tool's action, output, and recommended use case. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary detail, achieving perfect front-loading of essential 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?

Given the tool has two optional parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the key aspects: what the tool does, what the output contains (match, missing, drifted with diffs), and when to use it. It lacks details about potential mutation (likely read-only) or error conditions, but overall it is sufficiently complete for effective agent use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, both parameters already have basic explanations. The tool description adds extra context: for 'templates', it explains that the filter can use template paths or target paths, and omitting diffs all tracked templates. This enriches the schema information, justifying a higher score above the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Diff') and clearly identifies the resource ('plugin against the current scaffold templates'). It details the output (reports match, missing, drifted with unified diffs) and distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools like audit-plugin or get-template by focusing on syncing aging plugins with the latest scaffold.

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 advises using the tool 'to keep aging plugins in sync with the latest scaffold', which provides a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get-template or list-templates for merely viewing templates, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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