drift_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape (timestamps, triggered finding counts by severity, baseline IDs) and implies a read operation, but says nothing about pagination behavior, the default 10-item cap, or any rate/auth constraints.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the sibling disambiguation. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so detailing return fields is not strictly required, and the read context is adequate. However, for a two-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, leaving 'limit' undocumented is a real gap.

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 0% and there are two parameters. The description explains neither the required 'url' nor the optional 'limit' (default 10, page size semantics). It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Return recent drift comparisons for a URL'), and the sibling drift_compare is explicitly named, so the agent can distinguish it. Clear, though it does not explicitly label the tool as read-only.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this for history and 'drift_compare to run a fresh comparison.' That is a real when/when-not distinction. It lacks guidance on the limit parameter or freshness windows, but the core routing is present.

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