List Contract Drift

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral specifics: it filters out resolved events by default, groups by endpoint, and includes drift duration and contract version—context that goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent anticipate output shape.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and efficiently includes the filtering behavior, the alternative tool, and a prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 list tool with all-optional parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the key output fields (grouping, drift items, duration, contract version) and the default filtering. It omits details like pagination or empty-result behavior, but those are not critical for correct invocation. The note on project context is important and included.

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 100%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning; it only implies the output grouping. Per the rubric, with high coverage the baseline is 3, and there is no extra parameter context to raise it.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'endpoints of a project whose live responses drift from their contract', with specific details on grouping and fields included. It distinguishes itself from get_schema_drift_report by noting that tool covers a single monitor's history, making its scope unambiguous.

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 description explicitly says 'Resolved events are left out unless asked for' and directs users to 'Use get_schema_drift_report for one monitor's history', providing clear when-to-use vs. alternative guidance. It also notes 'Requires project context', setting expectations for invocation.

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