drift-monitor

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behavioral traits: the fingerprint components (SHA-256, heading tree, word counts), the 500-paragraph cap, and the reported metrics for 'check'. It omits some details like side effects or permissions, but overall provides sufficient transparency for the tool's actions.

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 highly concise—two sentences that front-load the purpose and enumerate actions with details. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 the tool's complexity (two actions, three parameters, no output schema), the description covers all key aspects: actions, parameters, output of 'check', and a constraint on 'watch'. It could elaborate on error handling or prerequisites, but it is largely complete for the agent to decide correct usage.

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 baseline 3, but the description adds significant meaning beyond raw schema: it specifies that 'name' is only for 'watch', explains 'filePath' requirement and optionality, and clarifies the action parameter's behavior. This enriches the schema information.

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 purpose: monitoring documents for structural drift. It defines two actions ('watch' and 'check') with specific details, distinguishing it from sibling tools which are centered on document creation/editing rather than analysis.

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 concrete guidance on when to use each action ('watch' for fingerprinting, 'check' for comparison) and notes optional behavior for 'filePath' on check. It implies a workflow (watch first, then check), but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or direct users to alternatives.

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