diff_project_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: ignoring whitespace and comments. However, it does not describe the output format or whether the operation has any side effects, leaving some ambiguity about what the agent should expect after invocation.

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?

A single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the verb and object and adds a meaningful behavioral qualifier. Excellent conciseness.

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 simple two-parameter diff tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and key filtering behavior. It does not explicitly state the return format, but the tool name and description strongly imply a diff result. Overall, sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond repeating the config file types already in the schema. Baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'Compare' and clearly identifies the resource type as config files, listing concrete extensions (project.godot, .cfg, .import). This distinguishes it from sibling diff tools like diff_resource, diff_scene, diff_script, and diff_animation, which target other resource types.

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 explicit mention of config file extensions implies when to use this tool, and the sibling names provide obvious contrast for other diff operations. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5.

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