Report build progress and check drift

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

Description says 'This changes nothing in SkeletIQ — an agent never writes back to a design,' which directly conflicts with the annotation readOnlyHint=false. The annotation implies the tool may mutate state; the description claims it does not. This is a clear annotation contradiction, so the score must be 1.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and outcome, then adds the critical covers nuance and the no-writes clarification. 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?

With a full input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential concept of drift, the covers behavior, and the side-effect guarantee. It is complete for invocation. The annotation contradiction slightly undermines the side-effect clarity, but the description itself is adequate.

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 the description is not required to repeat parameter meanings. The main description adds a useful covers rule ('Declare covers when this repository implements only part of the design'), but that guidance is also present in the schema's covers parameter description. The description does not add significant meaning beyond 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 states a specific verb ('check drift') and clearly describes the resource (SkeletIQ project design/code comparison) and the three kinds of results returned: missing, half-done, and code-only. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like list_projects, get_design, and generate_architecture.

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 context is implied: use this after building components to report progress and see drift. However, no explicit when-to-use or exclusions are given, and no alternative tools are named. An agent must infer the right timing and when not to use this tool.

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