yuque_diff_doc_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Computes diff locally' is a genuinely useful behavioral trait (no remote call, implies possible truncation via max_lines), and 'compare and show' implies a read-only operation. However, it says nothing about permissions, error behavior when a version ID is invalid, or how truncation interacts with the diff result.

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 tight sentences that front-load the core action and output format with no filler. The trailing Chinese reference ('详见 references/api/doc_api.md') is a mixed-language pointer of marginal value to an agent and could have been omitted or translated.

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 diff tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does cover the essential return semantics (three diff categories) and the local-computation behavior. It stops short of describing the result structure or how truncation is surfaced, but nothing critical to correct invocation 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%, so all four parameters (including max_lines and context_lines) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the notion of added/removed/unchanged categories, which does not deepen understanding of any specific parameter. 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 and resource ('Compare two document versions') plus the output shape ('line-level diff (added/removed/unchanged)'), which clearly separates it from sibling readers like yuque_get_doc_versions and yuque_get_doc_version_detail. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. that version IDs come from yuque_get_doc_versions), and no exclusions. The purpose implies the use case but the description leaves the agent to infer the routing entirely.

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