get_drift_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description clearly conveys that the tool returns the latest drift check details including plan output, showing resource changes. It does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or cost, but for a read operation it is sufficiently transparent.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose and output, the second explains what it shows, and the third highlights importance. Every sentence adds value.

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 explains the output contents (plan output, resources added/changed/destroyed), which compensates for the lack of an output schema. It does not mention format or pagination, but is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which already clearly define project_key and environment_key.

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 uses a specific verb 'get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'drift check details' for an environment, including the full plan output. It distinguishes from siblings like get_environment_info and list_environments by focusing on drift-specific information.

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 implicitly states it's essential for understanding what needs to be fixed, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative siblings like get_environment_info or list_projects_with_drift. No when-not or prerequisite information is provided.

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