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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clarifies that this is a report and enumerates the health states and outputs, strongly implying a read-only operation. It doesn't explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or any permissions, but the report nature covers most risk.

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: the first front-loads the output contract, the second gives the call trigger. No filler or redundancy.

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 parameterless report tool, the description covers what it returns and when to call it. The absence of an output schema is mostly compensated for by the explicit output summary, though it doesn't describe the full response shape.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to document parameters, and none are missing.

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 names a concrete 'Drift report' with a defined output set (score, health, churn, violations), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not directly contrast with sibling reports like hexum_loop_status, but the drift terminology and session scope are specific enough to orient an agent.

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?

Includes an explicit trigger: 'Call when the agent is repeating edits or failing the same check.' It does not list alternatives or exclusions, but the stated condition is actionable and sufficient for a 0-parameter report.

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