tf_drift

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it runs a refresh-only plan, reports differences, and makes no changes. It explicitly states 'Read-only', which is key for agent decision-making.

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 concise: three sentences cover the tool's purpose, mechanism, and safety. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 description lacks details about the output format or structure. While it says 'reports differences', it does not specify whether output is text, JSON, or structured data. For a tool with no output schema, this is a 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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the tool's overall purpose. A score of 3 is appropriate as parameters are adequately covered by the schema.

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's purpose: 'Detect infrastructure drift'. It explains what drift is and how it works ('Runs a refresh-only plan and reports differences between state and reality'). This distinguishes it from siblings like tf_plan or tf_apply.

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 safety ('Read-only, makes no changes') but does not explicitly guide when to use tf_drift versus alternative sibling tools like tf_plan. Users can infer usage context, but explicit when-to-use advice is missing.

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