http_diff

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

Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses behavior: it is stateless, reports on status transitions with severity classes, header diffs with security tagging, cookie attribute diffs, and body diffs. No contradictions with annotations.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose, input format details, and a bulleted list of report outputs. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately concise.

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's complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides comprehensive coverage: input formats, report contents, and stateless nature. It is complete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by defining the expected structure for both parameters (raw HTTP response strings or dicts with specific fields), adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 states the tool diffs two HTTP responses with security-relevant findings. It uses specific verbs ('diff') and resources ('HTTP responses') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on other security tasks.

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 specifies input formats (raw strings or dicts) and outlines the report contents, providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct comparison to alternatives.

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