ps_state_drift_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, response format, or whether it's safe or destructive. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with it effectively.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter meanings, and return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool correctly beyond a basic understanding of its purpose.

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 33% (only 'since' has a description), and the description doesn't add any parameter details beyond the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'agentId', 'since', or 'limit' mean in context, so it doesn't compensate for the low coverage, but with 0 parameters documented in the description, the baseline is 3 as it doesn't contradict 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 'Get drift history for an agent' clearly states the action (get) and resource (drift history for an agent), but it's vague about what 'drift history' entails and doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like ps_state_get or ps_state_system. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with siblings like ps_state_get, there's no indication of how this differs in usage scenarios.

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