compliance_drift_detect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'detect', implying a read operation, but does not confirm read-only nature, mention side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving significant gaps.

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 concise sentence with no waste. However, it could benefit from a second sentence introducing what the tool returns or its relation to the baseline, balancing brevity with completeness.

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 two required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return format, failure states, or the need for a pre-existing baseline, which is critical given sibling tools like compliance_drift_baseline.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Project path to scan', 'Compliance frameworks to check'). The description adds 'from baseline' but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond schema, 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 detects compliance drift from baseline, identifying its action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like compliance_drift_baseline (which sets baseline) and compliance_status_overview (which shows current status), but could elaborate on what 'drift' entails.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a baseline must exist) or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for proper selection.

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