Check Infrastructure Drift

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

Reinforces annotations (idempotent, non-destructive) by stating it's read-only. Adds important behavioral details: returns job_id, single-flight constraint, force_new override. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Well-structured with labeled sections (DRIFT CHECK, single-flight, requires, optional). Front-loaded with key purpose. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, so appropriate for complexity.

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?

Covers all necessary information for a read-only drift check tool: prerequisites (session_id, prior deployment), behavior (single-flight, read-only), return (job_id), and how to get results (tflogs). No output schema, but description clearly mentions return value and next steps.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, description adds significant context: session_id format requirement including token suffix, and force_new semantics (bypass guard, use when wedged). Goes well beyond schema descriptions.

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 states it's a 'DRIFT CHECK: Run a read-only drift detection check' and clearly distinguishes from siblings like tfdeploy and tflogs by mentioning usage of tflogs for results and tfdeploy(ignore_drift=true) for proceeding after drift detection.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use context: after a deployment to check drift. Mentions single-flight constraint and when force_new is appropriate (when existing run is wedged). Could be more explicit about when not to use (e.g., if no prior deployment).

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