yaaif_agent_spec_drift_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explicitly states 'non-destructive' and 'records readiness conflicts only', which clarifies that it doesn't modify anything and only captures a specific type of data. This is valuable behavioral disclosure, though it doesn't mention return format or any rate limits.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The key characteristics (non-destructive, records only) are front-loaded, and the pointer to sync preview/apply is a natural next step. Efficient and well-organized.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema), but the description omits what the scan returns and fails to explain the 'limit' parameter. It provides enough to invoke the tool but not enough to interpret results or use the parameter correctly. Given the simplicity, a more complete description was expected.

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 description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all, and the schema provides no description either (0% coverage). The agent is left to guess what 'limit' does—likely a maximum number of results, but not stated. Since there is only one parameter, the description should at least hint at its meaning.

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 verb ('Run'), the resource ('Scenario drift scan'), and the scope ('non-destructive', 'records readiness conflicts only'). It distinguishes itself from the sync tools (preview/apply) which are for resolving conflicts, so an agent can tell this is a read-only diagnostic.

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?

It explicitly points to 'sync preview/apply' as the resolution tools, which helps routing after a scan. However, it doesn't compare with other scan-like tools (e.g., yaaif_agent_spec_readiness, yaaif_agent_spec_coverage) to clarify when this specific scan is preferred over them. The guidance is useful but not exhaustive.

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