delimit_drift_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation ('check'), but does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies resources, permissions needed, or possible side effects. The output schema covers return values but behavioral traits are vague.

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 concise with two short paragraphs. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the bullet list of detections is clear. 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?

The description adequately states the tool's purpose and detection capabilities, and the output schema explains return values. However, it lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., what constitutes a 'governance review'), how to set a baseline, or interpretation of results, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (spec_path, project_path, staleness_days), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning or usage context for these parameters, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the last governance review. It lists specific detections (spec changed without lint, stale baseline, missing policy), which distinguishes it from siblings like delimit_lint or delimit_drift_history.

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 cron schedule for continuous compliance monitoring, providing context. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative tools.

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