taskguard_check_scope_drift

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

No annotations provided, so description must bear full transparency. It reveals the tool 'warns' about scope drift, implying a read-only check. However, it does not disclose return format, side effects, or permission requirements.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence is slightly dense but functional. Efficient for the information conveyed.

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, no annotations, and three undocumented parameters, the description is notably incomplete. It lacks return value behavior, parameter details, and edge-case handling (e.g., when changedFiles is provided).

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 0% and description gives no explanation of any parameters (sessionId, changedFiles, proposedAction). With three parameters, the tool name and purpose loosely imply proposedAction is the action to check, but no explicit semantics are provided.

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 checks if proposed action is within task contract, using specific verb 'check scope drift' and resource 'task goal'. It differentiates from siblings (e.g., add_checkpoint, verify_done) by focusing on drift detection before action.

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?

Description explicitly advises calling 'before' specific cases (adjacent cleanup, broad refactors, extra features). It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not, but the examples and context are sufficient for appropriate use.

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