prumo_drift

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations, the description explains the git-blame-based drift computation, the ordering of results, and that a changed section 'may still be right.' It also explicitly reassures that 'Nothing is written,' adding meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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 dense but every sentence contributes value: the report computation, ordering, review interpretation, and safety confirmation. The first sentence is long and somewhat complex, but the information is efficiently packed and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains what is returned: sections, file-change counts, commit counts, and ordering by 'most moved first.' It is complete enough for a read-only reporting tool, though it does not specify the exact output structure or edge-case behavior for empty 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 the baseline is 3. The description's algorithm explanation clarifies the conceptual meaning of the targets as context-file sections, but it does not add new details about repo path resolution or target format beyond what the schema already documents.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Reports', and names the resource: sections of context files that have drifted from cited code changes. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by framing the output as 'a reading order for a review, never a finding,' so an agent can tell prumo_drift apart from prumo_check or prumo_fix.

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 states when to use this tool: to get a review reading order of drifted context sections. It also provides an exclusion, 'never a finding,' but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when prumo_check/fix/budget should be used instead.

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