list_driftedList article threads whose approved Key-Facts card is dark because the opening post was edited after approval (content-hash drift). These are exactly what the hourly fill driver repairs next.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max threads to return (1-100) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the drift mechanism and the 'dark card' state, which is not derivable from the annotations or schema. It does not describe pagination or sorting behavior, but the output schema likely covers return structure.
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 sentences carry the core purpose, the triggering condition, and the operational context without any filler. The key differentiator is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to scan and select correctly.
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 read-only list operation with one optional parameter, a rich output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description provides everything needed. It explains what the tool returns, why these threads matter, and how they are identified. No critical gap remains.
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%, and the only parameter is `limit` with a clear default and range. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but it doesn't need to because the schema fully documents the single optional parameter. 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 states a specific verb and resource: list article threads with a dark Key-Facts card caused by content-hash drift after an opening-post edit. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_threads and search_threads, which do not target this specific drifted state.
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 gives clear context for when this tool is relevant: when identifying threads whose approved Key-Facts card is dark because the opening post changed after approval. It also notes these are exactly what the hourly fill driver repairs next, which implies operational selection. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.