cipp_get_tenant_drift

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that the tool 'reports' drift, confirming read-only behavior. It explains what drift is (deviations from template) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like output format, pagination, or rate limits. Given annotations, the description adds some context but not extensive behavioral detail.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence identifies the primary purpose, and the second provides a key usage instruction. There is no fluff or redundancy; every sentence is essential.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers invocation and scope. However, it does not describe the output format or potential error responses. Given low complexity, the missing output description is a minor gap, making it slightly incomplete.

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 100% for the single parameter. The description reinforces the schema by restating that omitting tenantFilter reports across all tenants. It does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 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 defines the tool's purpose: 'Report standards drift — settings that deviate from a tenant's assigned Standards Template.' It uses a specific verb ('report') and resource ('standards drift'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like cipp_get_tenant_alignment or cipp_run_standards_check by focusing on drift detection rather than alignment or execution.

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 usage guidance: 'Omit tenantFilter to report drift across all tenants.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the sibling tools. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary or comparative language.

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