Show pending changes

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, it discloses non-obvious behavior: it does not pull first (comparison is against Overleaf as last fetched), it contacts Overleaf only to clone an unopened project, it covers only the chosen project, the diff is truncated at 60,000 characters, and it explains the 'No local changes pending.' output. This is exactly the context an agent cannot get from 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?

Usage guidance is front-loaded and every sentence carries load-bearing information (scope, fetch semantics, truncation, empty-state message). It is dense and runs long, but there is little true filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains the return form (unified diff), the truncation limit, and the empty-result message, plus the fetch/scope caveats an agent needs to interpret results correctly. Nothing essential is missing.

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% and there is a single optional 'project' parameter already fully documented with address/id/name forms. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (show) and resource (unified diff of the project's clone vs Overleaf), and enumerates exactly what the diff contains: uncommitted edits, new/deleted files, and commits from a refused push. This clearly separates it from siblings like project_status and push_changes.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions (before push_changes to preview what collaborators receive; after a refused push to inspect pending work) and names the alternative for a lighter need: 'use project_status when counts are enough.' Nothing is left to inference.

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