get_drift_report

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

Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly explains the process (fetching live spec, recomputing hash, bucketing) and result meanings. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but implies no writes.

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?

Every sentence contributes value: mechanism, buckets, use cases, optional parameter, output summary. Well-structured and front-loaded with main action.

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 no output schema, the description still provides sufficient context: return types (counts, details, markdown). Also explains the 'unknown' bucket and how to resolve it, enabling the agent to handle results.

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?

Single optional parameter spec_id is explained: it narrows the check to one spec. The description adds useful context beyond the bare schema, which had 0% coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: detect drift in specs by comparing stored and live ac_hashes. It details the exact mechanism and output buckets, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_drift_signature'.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('has anything changed', 'what's out of sync') and explains the bucketing logic. Lacks explicit when-not or alternative tools, but context is clear.

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