delimit_drift_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only check but never explicitly states that it does not modify data. It also omits authentication, rate limits, and side effects entirely.

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 (4 sentences, 2 paragraphs). Every sentence adds value: purpose, detection details, and scheduling guidance. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, but it still lacks information on what the check outputs (e.g., drift summary, pass/fail). Minimal but adequate for a well-understood tool in context.

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?

Input schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the schema already provides meaning. The description adds minimal value (e.g., 'Auto-detects if empty' for spec_path, which is already in the schema). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool checks for API spec drift since last governance review, with specific detections listed. This verb-resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like delimit_diff or delimit_collision_check, though no explicit differentiation is made.

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 suggests running on a schedule (cron) for continuous compliance monitoring, which provides a usage context. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives (e.g., delimit_diff for general diffing).

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