adjudicate_drift

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

The description adds the behavioral note that it invokes the host model and restricts to cited IDs, which goes beyond the bare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint flags. However, it doesn't disclose whether this operation is expensive, whether it mutates state, or what kind of response is expected.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and includes a relevant constraint. No 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 covers the core operation and the constraint, and the output schema handles the return format. However, it omits usage context (when to adjudicate vs. other drift operations), which reduces completeness.

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 single parameter audit_id is fully described in the schema as an identifier returned by create_audit. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail, so baseline 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's function: asking the host model to adjudicate drift, with the specific constraint of using only cited claim and fact IDs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_drift and build_drift_report, though not explicitly named.

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 provides no guidance on when to select this tool over alternatives such as compare_drift or build_drift_report. It neither states prerequisites nor exclusions.

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