drift_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it returns specific signal types and includes a recommended action for critical cases. It does not mention side effects but implies a read-only operation.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the output (signal types) and a usage recommendation, making it sufficiently complete for a simple read tool without output schema. It lacks details on parameter effects but the schema covers those.

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%, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. It does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate.

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 returns active drift/loop/fabrication signals, using specific verbs and resource types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_audit by focusing on a specific self-check function.

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 explicitly advises when to use ('before starting a major task phase') and what to do if critical signals are found ('pause and surface to human'). While it doesn't discuss when not to use, the guidance is actionable and clear.

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