find_divergence

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

No annotations, but description discloses it's a 'REVIEW HINT' not a verified bug list, and 'silent on a consistent codebase'. This gives realistic expectations. However, lacks detail on side effects or read-only nature.

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?

Description is a single paragraph, somewhat long but not excessive. Front-loads purpose but includes explanatory phrases that could be streamlined.

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?

For an audit tool with no output schema and low parameter coverage, description covers purpose and use cases but misses parameter details and return format, leaving gaps for agent.

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 description coverage is 0%, and description does not explain parameters like max_findings or respect_gitignore. Only directory is implied. Agent cannot infer parameter meaning from description.

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 audits a directory for peer divergence, identifying functions that break call patterns. It distinguishes from sibling 'preview_directory' by emphasizing focus and efficiency.

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 describes when to use (hunt drift, dead connectivity) and contrasts with preview_directory. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context implies alternatives.

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