ouroboros_measure_drift

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 weighted formula (goal drift 50%, constraint drift 30%, ontology drift 20%) and the return behavior (drift metrics, analysis, suggestions conditional on threshold). This is valuable beyond the schema, though it omits side effects and error handling.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and following with formula and output. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the return type at a high level (metrics, analysis, suggestions) but lacks detail on output structure and edge cases like threshold definition. It is adequate but incomplete for fully understanding expected results.

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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds context about the weighting components but does not further explain individual parameters or how they map to the calculation. 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 clearly states the tool measures drift from the original seed goal, with a specific verb and resource. It also describes the calculation components and output, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ouroboros_evaluate or ouroboros_session_signal.

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 implies usage: when you need to measure drift from a seed goal. It does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools. There are no exclusion criteria or context about prerequisites.

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