detect_purpose_drift

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. It only states the high-level detection goal, leaving the agent to guess at behavior.

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, clearly-worded sentence with an illustrative example, making it front-loaded and free of filler. However, for a tool with four parameters, it is arguably too terse to be fully helpful.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and minimal parameter explanation, the description leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly. It does not explain what constitutes 'drift' or how to structure the arguments.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the meaning of parameters such as allowedPurposes or intermediateSteps. The only hint is the example values 'research' and 'commercial', which are insufficient.

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 identifies the tool's function as detecting purpose drift in workflows, with a concrete example (research → commercial). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_purpose_permitted, which presumably verify permissions against a policy.

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 the tool should be used when analyzing workflow purpose transitions, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over other governance tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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