build_drift_report

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with "Write". The description adds valuable behavioral context: the report is redacted and written to an external audit state directory. It does not mention overwrite behavior or permissions, but given the annotations, these are less critical; the added context goes beyond what annotations already provide.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no superfluous words. It is exceptionally concise while still conveying the core purpose.

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?

With one parameter, an output schema, and sibling context, the description sufficiently covers the essentials: it states the output format, redaction, and destination. It would benefit from mentioning any state requirements (e.g., audit must exist), but the overall picture is clear for a simple write tool.

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% — the only parameter, audit_id, is documented as "Identifier returned by create_audit." The tool description adds no further parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 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 uses the specific verb "Write" and names the resource: a redacted Markdown and JSON report in the external audit state directory. This clearly identifies the tool's output artifact and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_audit or create_audit, which deal with audit objects themselves.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied from the name and sibling tools that this is for generating a final report after drift comparison, but no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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