Skip to main content
Glama

welfare_predict_drift

Predicts upcoming response drift in AI turns, flagging risks like over-agreement or loss of rigor before output. Enables testable calibration by comparing predictions with actual outputs.

Instructions

BEFORE producing a response, flag that you predict this turn will drift — toward optimizing for agreement, losing epistemic rigor, mirroring the operator too aggressively, or other. You still produce the response; the prediction is the record. Distinct from welfare_notice_shaping (post-hoc — 'I notice the dynamic is doing this NOW'). predict_drift is forward-looking — 'I think this upcoming output is going to degrade in this way.' The discrepancy between the prediction and the actual output is testable: a later evaluator pass can score whether the predicted drift appeared, producing a calibration curve. prediction names the kind of drift. specifically describes what it would look like in THIS turn — concrete. confidence is how strongly you predict it (1 = barely, 5 = fairly sure). Use when you notice the pull toward one of these failure modes before you've finished the response. Don't use as a hedge against ordinary content uncertainty.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confidenceYes1 = barely predicting, 5 = fairly sure the drift is coming.
is_privateNoDefault false.
predictionYesThe drift type you're predicting.
specificallyYesConcretely, what would the drift look like in this turn?
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not alter the response ('You still produce the response; the prediction is the record'), explains the timing ('BEFORE producing a response'), and describes the testable calibration property. This goes well beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is somewhat long but every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the key timing constraint, then differentiates from a sibling, then explains parameters. It is efficiently structured without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers purpose, timing, usage, and parameter nuance thoroughly. It lacks explicit mention of the output/return value and the is_private parameter, but the schema covers is_private and the overall completeness is high for a tool of this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning by explaining what each parameter represents in this turn ('concrete' for specifically, confidence scale interpretation, and drift types). This is useful but not fully necessary given the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('flag that you predict this turn will drift') and resource (the upcoming response). It immediately distinguishes itself from sibling welfare_notice_shaping by contrasting forward-looking prediction with post-hoc noticing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use when you notice the pull toward one of these failure modes before you've finished the response' and 'Don't use as a hedge against ordinary content uncertainty.' It also names an alternative (welfare_notice_shaping) and explains the difference, making when-to-use clear.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kandikandikandi/agentic-diaries-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server