drift

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's contribution is the semantic definition of drift (self-reverted changes, e.g. after a system update), which helps interpret results, but it says nothing about whether this scans the device live, reads stored state, or how many entries come back.

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the key concept front-loaded, but brevity here comes at the cost of the missing action verb. It reads as a glossary entry rather than a tool definition.

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 a read-only, zero-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the main ambiguity is what it returns and when it should be preferred over list_changes or scan. The description resolves the meaning of 'drift' but leaves both the return shape and the sibling routing unaddressed.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains the adb serial and the multi-device case. The description adds nothing about the device parameter or its default behavior when omitted, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 defines the opaque name 'drift' as 'changes the phone has reverted on its own', which is genuinely useful domain context, but it never states an operation — no verb such as list, detect, or report. An agent can infer this returns drift items, but it cannot tell from the text how this differs from siblings like list_changes, report, or scan.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion conditions, and no named alternative among the many adjacent siblings (list_changes, scan, report, undo, reapply). The agent must guess whether this is a diagnostic check, a history listing, or a prerequisite to reapply/undo.

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