Detects documentation drift by reporting domains whose redirect ratio exceeds a threshold, prioritizing affected sources, and delivering a natural-language verdict on shifted docs.
Raport driftu dokumentacji + prior źródeł + werdykt w języku naturalnym. Domeny, które zaczęły przekierowywać = docs się przestawiły.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| threshold | No | próg redirect_ratio (domyślnie 0.25) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and falls short. It does not say whether the tool performs live crawling (and the associated cost/latency), whether it is strictly read-only, whether it consumes a pre-built index, or what the 'prior źródeł' actually represents.
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 short sentences with the deliverable front-loaded and no padding. The second sentence is somewhat telegraphic and uses unexplained jargon ('prior źródeł'), which costs a little clarity but not length.
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?
For a no-annotation, no-output-schema analysis tool, the description covers what is produced but not how, at what cost, or in what format the verdict arrives. It is minimally sufficient to try the tool but leaves real gaps an agent would want filled.
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% for the single parameter (threshold, default 0.25), so the schema already documents it. The description mentions redirect behaviour but never explains how threshold changes the reported drift, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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 a concrete deliverable: a documentation drift report bundled with a source prior and a natural-language verdict, so the verb+resource are identifiable. It never distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'web.drift', which by name appears to overlap heavily, leaving the agent to guess which one to call.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. The clause about domains that started redirecting hints at the signal that defines drift, but the agent is not told when to pick this over web.drift or web.verify_links.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.