find_doc_drift

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context — findings carry a severity, cite the doc section, and include a suggested fix, and changelogs are excluded — but it does not say whether analysis is post-index only (requiring index_repo first), how expensive a full-repo scan is, or whether results are ordered deterministically. Those gaps keep it at solid-but-partial rather than rich.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the problem statement, then use cases, then the specific detection categories, then the changelog exclusion. The fragment style in the opening sentence and the semicolon-chained finding list are slightly unruly but every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return shape, and annotations cover read-only safety; the remaining burden is telling the agent what the tool checks and when to reach for it, which it does. The only shortfall is that it does not state the prerequisite of an indexed repo, which is instead buried in the repo parameter's schema description.

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 each of the four parameters is already documented, including repo lookup via list_repos and the 1-200 limit bound. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond a vague nod to checking a "docs folder" (path_prefix) and release timing; baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 opening line names the resource and the problem domain (docs that no longer match code), and the middle of the description enumerates exactly what it detects: missing files/functions/settings/flags, bad parameters, failing imports, stale sections. That is far more specific than a sibling like search or ask_codebase, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, and the leading sentence is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement.

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?

"Use this to check a README or docs folder, or before a release" gives concrete triggering situations, and "Changelogs are skipped" supplies an explicit exclusion. What's missing is naming the alternatives an agent should pick instead when it wants code search or history (search, explain_history) for a drift-adjacent question.

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