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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which are consistent. The description adds transparency by detailing what is checked (files, docs, configs, bots, etc.) and the specific detection scenarios. No contradiction.

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 moderately concise but includes several examples and a scope list, which adds bulk. It is front-loaded with the main action but could be tightened without losing essential information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and its scopes adequately but does not explain return format or how results are presented. Given the complexity of scanning multiple areas, some output context would be beneficial.

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% for the only parameter (scope). The description adds meaning by explaining each enum value with specific examples (e.g., 'members=checks every downstream location for missing family members from family-roles.json'), going beyond the schema's short descriptions.

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 it scans for configuration drift and lists specific types of drift detected (e.g., renamed files, role changes, process mismatches). It distinguishes itself from siblings by covering multiple scopes, though it overlaps with bot_compliance_check for bot compliance.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bot_compliance_check or preflight_audit. The description implies usage when drift is suspected but does not set clear boundaries or provide selection criteria.

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