provider_subcommand_drift

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns compact drift rows rather than raw help output, which is useful. However, it does not disclose details about how providers are probed, what failures may occur, or what constitutes 'drifted' versus 'untrusted-help-exit' behavior.

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 a single focused sentence that front-loads the action and output, with no wasted words. It communicates the essential behavior and output constraint in an efficient manner.

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's 'compact drift rows' is useful but underspecified; it does not describe what fields or statuses a drift row contains. The two parameters are well covered by the schema, and the annotations handle the safety profile, so the main gap is the lack of output detail and more explicit domain context.

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%, and the schema already documents both parameters, including the provider enum and includeClean behavior. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, so the 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 names a specific action ('Probe declared provider subcommand --help surfaces') and a specific deliverable ('compact drift rows'), which clearly sets it apart from generic listing tools. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'drift' means relative to declared contracts, but the core purpose is understandable.

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 implies this tool is for detecting drift between declared provider subcommands and actual --help availability, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus siblings like provider_subcommands_list or provider_subcommand_contract. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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