get_current_driftWhat is currently broken or regressed in Microsoft Copilot Studio, per the continuously verified Friction Index: all records with status open or regressed (newest status change first) plus register health counts (total records, share verified within 90 days, status distribution).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds the specific return structure: open/regressed records sorted by newest status change, plus register health counts. No contradiction with annotations.
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 sentence that packs all necessary information (what, selection criteria, sorting, additional counts) without redundancy. Every segment 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?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core output: records and health counts. It could optionally mention that results are readonly (already in annotations) but is otherwise complete for its simplicity.
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?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly implies no filtering is needed, which matches the tool's purpose. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate for zero parameters.
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 precisely states the tool returns 'currently broken or regressed' records with status open/regressed and health counts, using the specific verb 'get' and resource 'current drift'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_friction_record (single record) and search_frictions (filtered).
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 for checking current status via 'per the continuously verified Friction Index' and mentions ordering. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., list_frictions for all) or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: overview, specific record, pattern retrieval, listing, error lookup, and search. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent 'verb_noun' pattern (e.g., get_current_drift, list_frictions, lookup_error), with clear action and object.
Seven tools cover the domain comprehensively without being excessive. Each tool serves a specific need for querying the friction index.
The tool set provides complete read access to the friction index: overview, detailed records, patterns, listings with filters, error lookup, and full-text search. No obvious gaps for a read-only register.