diff_apis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool compares, but it doesn't disclose whether this is read-only, what the output format looks like, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that may interact with registered services.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action ('Compare') and includes the key objects (current spec, registered service, new source). No wasted words.

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?

Despite low complexity and full schema coverage, the description omits important context such as the expected return type (diff output?), error behavior, and whether the operation has side effects. Since no output schema exists, the description should explain the result of the comparison, but it doesn't.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage): serviceName as the registered service name and newSource as the spec source. The description's phrasing ('registered service' and 'new source') aligns with the schema but adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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's function: comparing a registered service's current spec against a new source. The specific verb 'compare' and references to 'registered service' and 'new source' distinguish it from sibling tools that list or describe resources.

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 implies usage context—when you need to compare specs before updating—but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisite conditions like service existence or source accessibility. Sibling tools have different purposes, so the intended use is inferable but not explicitly guided.

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