fit_check_drift

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'emit drift-check prompt against current overview', which implies a read-like generation, but does not state whether it modifies state, requires certain conditions, or has side effects. Key behavioral traits are missing.

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 extremely concise (13 words), but at the cost of essential detail. While it avoids fluff, its brevity undermines clarity. It qualifies as appropriately sized only if the tool is trivial, which it likely is not.

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?

Given the tool's role as a pipeline gate and the presence of many siblings, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain relationship to other gates, what 'drift-check' entails, or how the output schema complements the tool. The agent cannot determine if this tool is suitable without external knowledge.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. 'cluster_slug' and 'threshold' receive no meaning beyond their types and default. The description fails to clarify how threshold influences drift-check or what cluster_slug represents.

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 identifies the tool as a gate that emits a drift-check prompt, but it relies on jargon ('drift-check prompt') without explaining what that entails. It vaguely distinguishes from siblings via the 'Gate 4' label, but doesn't clearly state the tool's core function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like fit_check_apply or fit_check_audit. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or situations where it should or should not be used.

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