detect_schema_drift

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'inspect' wording is consistent with that safety profile. The description adds useful context by stating it uses 'verified framework-native commands' and that it reports unsupported dimensions honestly, which suggests it will not fabricate results. However, it stops short of explaining concrete behavioral details like output shape or failure modes.

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 concise sentence with the primary action front-loaded. The word 'honestly' is slightly editorial, but it still communicates a real behavioral intent and does not bloat the description significantly.

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?

With three parameters including an opaque nested options object, no output schema, and several sibling tools, the description is too thin to fully guide an agent. It does not explain what inputs are needed, how results are returned, or how this tool fits into the migration workflow.

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 only 33%, with only repository documented; the options object is entirely opaque. The description does not compensate by explaining what options, framework, or repository mean, nor does it clarify how framework selection affects execution. Most parameter semantics remain implicit or undocumented.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'inspect schema drift.' It also signals an important behavioral constraint, using 'verified framework-native commands,' which gives the agent a sense of what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but 'schema drift' is distinct enough from migration status and generation tools.

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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like detect_migration_frameworks or list_migration_status. It does not specify prerequisites, such as whether a framework must already be detected, nor does it explain when this tool is not appropriate.

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