aiworkhub_contract_consistency_check

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

readOnlyHint=true is already declared in annotations, so 'READ-ONLY' adds nothing new. The description does not say what constitutes drift, whether it compares against a stored baseline, whether it is expensive, or what it does when drift is found. It gives no behavioral context beyond the annotation it restates.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding and the safety mode stated up front. It is efficient, though the brevity leans toward under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and with zero parameters there is little surface area to cover. Still, the description never explains what 'drift' covers or what scope the check spans, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. Baseline 4 applies; nothing is missing or misleading on this dimension.

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 verb 'detect' and object 'instruction drift' are present, but 'managed provider/worker instruction drift' is domain jargon that isn't unpacked, so an agent cannot tell precisely what condition is being checked. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like aiworkhub_agent_tool_instruction_inspect or aiworkhub_agent_tool_instruction_preview, which sound like they operate on overlapping subject matter.

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 statement of when to run this check, what triggers it, or why an agent would pick it over the many instruction/skill/recipe siblings. Only the 'READ-ONLY' prefix hints at safe invocation, and that is already covered by annotations, not usage guidance.

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