get_drift

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read-only analysis operation and enumerates the computed outputs, which gives the agent an accurate model of what invoking the tool will do. It could mention behavior when no log exists or how the server filter affects results, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 sentence front-loads the primary purpose ('Analyze the drift log built by get_time') and then lists the specific reports produced. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key context: what data it analyzes, what metrics it reports, and the relationship to get_time. It is not exhaustive about edge cases like empty logs or threshold definitions, but those are not required given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already describes the only parameter, server, with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add extra meaning about parameter usage beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 action (analyze), the resource (the drift log built by get_time), and the specific outputs (current offset, drift rate, stability status). It also distinguishes itself from its sibling get_time by framing itself as an analysis of that tool's log data.

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 establishes a clear context: it operates on the drift log produced by get_time, implying get_time should be run first. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives, but for a two-tool sibling set the sequencing is strongly implied.

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