stale_applications

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and discloses sorting by stalest. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or auth requirements. For a read-only listing tool, the essential safety and ordering behavior is covered, but other traits are left to the output schema.

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 three crisp sentences: first states purpose and read-only nature, second gives a user scenario and workflow, third explains job filtering. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler, making it highly effective and scannable.

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 listing tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, read-only nature, sort order, a concrete use case, and a filtering instruction. It does not explicitly state that omitting job_id returns applications across all jobs, but that is inferable. This is complete enough to enable correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces job_id semantics by referencing 'list_jobs → match by name', but this repeats what the schema already says. It adds no new parameter-level meaning for days or limit, so it provides marginal value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination: 'Applications with no activity for N days, sorted by stalest' clearly states the tool lists stale applications and defines the criterion. It distinguishes from siblings like list_applications by the inactivity filter and sorting behavior, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit usage context: 'Users say "who's been sitting untouched?"' and recommends pairing with bulk_reject for pipeline cleanup. It also instructs how to filter by job via 'list_jobs → match by name'. It lacks explicit exclusions (e.g., 'use list_applications for unfiltered views') but gives sufficient, actionable scenarios.

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