drift_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the possible return states (fresh, drifted, withdrawn) and behavior when the hash is omitted. It does not cover rate limits or authentication details beyond requiring an api_key, but the core behavioral traits are explained.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then explains the usage and outcome efficiently.

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Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (fresh, drifted, withdrawn). It covers prerequisites (api_key, cached hash), parameters, and the agent's follow-up action (re-ground). The context is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the role of the hash (integrity hash for prior grounding) and the effect of omitting it (fetch current fingerprint), beyond the schema documentation.

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 purpose: checking whether cached compliance rules are current. It specifies the action (submit node_id with integrity hash) and the outcome (fresh, drifted, withdrawn), distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_action_compliance.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?

The description provides context for when to use the tool (before acting on stale rules) and a prerequisite (Bidda subscription key). However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or compare to alternatives, though the language implies its specific use case.

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