list_drift_events

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description reveals important behavioral details: return envelope structure, truncated semantics, no offset/cursor, local twin DB path (~/.vmware-harden/twin.duckdb), no network calls, and the edge case where an empty envelope is returned. These details go far beyond what annotations provide.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it covers the core purpose, parameter semantics, return envelope shape, edge cases, and usage guidance without fluff or repetition. Structure is front-loaded with the primary function, then specifics.

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 no output schema, the description provides complete return structure ({items, returned, limit, total, truncated, hint}), each item's fields ({node_id, field, old_value, new_value, detected_at}), and the meaning of total/truncated. It also explains when an empty envelope is returned, making the tool fully self-contained.

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 coverage is 0% and the parameter schema only shows type/default, but the description fully documents 'limit': optional int default 50, maximum rows returned, ordering by node_id then field, and no offset/cursor. This adds semantic meaning that the schema alone cannot provide.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'List configuration drift events from the most recent scan snapshot — fields whose values changed since the prior scan of the same target.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling list_violations by explicitly stating 'Use for change tracking; use list_violations for compliance failures.'

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?

Explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use for change tracking; use list_violations for compliance failures.' It also states the prerequisite that a target must be scanned at least twice, helping the agent understand when an empty result is expected.

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