diff_versions

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that the tool fetches and reports differences, which conveys read-only intent, but it does not mention side effects, rate limits, authentication nuances, or output format. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and provides essential detail without waste. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema, the description partially explains return value semantics (added/removed/modified nodes). It lacks information about error handling, output shape, or version format specifics, but overall adequately covers the tool's purpose and capabilities for a moderate-complexity tool.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning but also does not mislead. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden.

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: fetching two Figma file versions and reporting added, removed, and modified nodes. It names specific comparison properties (names, types, geometry, fills, style properties), providing a distinct resource and action that differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 (comparing two versions of a Figma file) without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions. While no sibling tool directly competes, the absence of explicit 'when to use' guidance prevents a 5.

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