Diff an import source against the User Library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'read-only' and 'No files are imported'. It adds context about the reviewable nature of the diff and the validation aspect, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and key constraint. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 description covers purpose and behavior adequately, but with 0% parameter schema coverage, it does not fully explain the parameters or which combinations are valid. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the optional parameters and the 'one ... or' relationship could confuse an agent. More detail would improve completeness.

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 three parameters with zero descriptions (0% coverage). The description mentions 'Figure Transfer Package or Gallery entry', which hints at galleryPath/packagePath, but does not explain sourceCommit, nor does it clarify that only one source should be provided. It partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 identifies the resource ('import source against the User Library'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating 'No files are imported' and 'read-only', contrasting with import/materialize tools. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to validate or preview a diff without importing. The explicit 'No files are imported' serves as a when-not, though no alternative tool is named. This is sufficient guidance for an AI agent.

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