analyze_drift

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by specifying the return payload (drift classification, score delta, lists of improvements/regressions) and clarifies the baseline 'cached' reuse, without contradicting 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?

Three sentences with clear information architecture: purpose, output, usage/alternatives. No wasted words; every sentence 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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers the return values. It also explains when to use the tool and the key baseline parameter behavior (via schema), making it sufficiently complete for a moderate-complexity tool.

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 100%, with detailed per-param explanations (e.g., baseline's 'cached' literal and exclusion of policy objects). The description itself doesn't add parameter-level semantics beyond schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool measures DNS security posture change against a prior snapshot, using specific verbs and resources. It explicitly distinguishes from compare_baseline by contrasting improvement-over-time vs compliance-to-policy, differentiating it from a key sibling tool.

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?

Provides an explicit use case ('did our security score improve or regress since last time?') and an explicit exclusion (not for compliance checks — use compare_baseline instead). The baseline parameter schema reinforces this with 'NOT a policy/requirements object — for compliance enforcement against required controls, use compare_baseline instead.'

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