timps_iac_drift_detector

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

The description communicates a read-only, 'safe' profile by using words like 'detect,' 'review,' and 'safe plan review,' and it lists the non-mutating outputs it produces. Still, with no annotations, it does not explicitly say that changes will not be applied or describe credential/permission requirements, leaving some ambiguity about side effects.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then concisely enumerates three distinct outputs. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary qualification.

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?

This description covers the core purpose, scope, and major outputs in a compact way, which is sufficient for an agent to decide initial invocation. It does not fully specify CLI/return-value structure or safety guarantees, but the schema is simple and the prose covers the main behavioral expectations.

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?

The input schema already covers 100% of the parameters with clear descriptions of 'request' and 'language.' The tool description adds no additional parameter-level explanation or examples, so it is appropriately at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 starts with a specific action verb ('Detect') and names the exact resources being evaluated: Terraform/Pulumi/CloudFormation state versus live cloud. It also lists concrete outputs (ranked diff, blast-radius estimate, safe terraform plan review), which clearly establishes what the tool does and differentiates it from general-purpose sibling tools.

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 clearly establishes the core use case: detecting infrastructure drift. However, it does not explicitly address alternatives such as the sibling terraform_plan_reviewer, which overlaps with the phrase 'terraform plan review.' The context is clear but exclusions and alternatives are not stated.

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