diff_facts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the output format (JSON) and the content (AST changes + caller/test sync), but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires any special setup beyond being post-edit_transaction.

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 extremely concise and information-dense. Every part serves a purpose: the timing, the content, the format, and the pointer to an alternative. No wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential context (when to use, what it returns, format, alternative), but it remains cryptic. It doesn't explain what 'caller/test sync' entails or the structure of the JSON, leaving ambiguity for an agent without domain knowledge.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, 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 clearly indicates the tool provides AST changes and caller/test sync information in JSON format, specifically after an edit_transaction. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing test_bridge for stale tests, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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 explicitly states the timing ('Post-edit_transaction') and provides an alternative tool for a specific condition ('Stale tests? test_bridge.'). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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