topic_drift_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries a heavy burden for behavioral transparency. It only states what the tool does (compares distributions) and mentions 'schema reconstruction' and Bartlett 1932 as theoretical context, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or any other behavioral traits. The description lacks transparency about safety and state changes.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and generally clear. However, the parenthetical '(schema reconstruction, Bartlett 1932)' adds a theoretical reference that may be extraneous for tool selection and invocation, though it does not significantly bloat the description.

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?

The tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives a high-level overview but omits essential context: what 'period_days' defaults to, what 'limit' limits, what the report output looks like, and any prerequisites. The phrase 'two most recent periods' is ambiguous without defining period boundaries. Completeness is inadequate for an agent to correctly rely on this tool.

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?

The input schema defines two parameters (limit, period_days) with no descriptions, and the tool description does not mention either parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining what these parameters do, but it fails to do so. The agent is left guessing the meaning and effect of limit and period_days.

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 function: comparing topic distribution between two recent periods to identify growth, shrinkage, appearance, and disappearance of themes. It uses a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('topic distribution'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like similarity_report or association_report.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need to analyze how topics have drifted between periods. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The description provides no guidance on when not to use it or how it fits with other reports.

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