config_drift

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

The description indicates a read-only operation via 'Detect', and the schema adds a prerequisite to reindex if the workspace is new. However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications are made, nor does it describe output format or permission requirements. With no annotations provided, these behavioral details are missing, leaving some gaps.

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 concise, consisting of a single clear sentence stating the purpose and a brief note about pairing with exception_guard. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler or redundant information.

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?

This simple detection tool has a complete parameter schema but no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what the tool returns or what the agent should expect as a result, which is a significant gap given the lack of output schema. The crucial prerequisite about reindexing is only present in the schema, not the main description, and overall the description could provide more context for a complete understanding.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters (workspace_dir and file), including a required flag and a clear description for file with the option to omit for full scan. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific meaning, but with 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool detects env vars, DB tables, and services missing from .env.example or docker-compose, using the specific verb 'Detect'. It also notes a pairing with exception_guard, which adds context and helps distinguish it from sibling tools like code_quality or security_review.

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 provides an implied usage context for detecting config drift and hints at a complementary relationship with exception_guard. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any exclusions. The guidance is minimal and somewhat vague.

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