list_stale_decisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List,' which implies a read-only operation, but it never explains how stale is determined, how cursor and limit affect pagination, or any ordering or filtering behavior. This is a meaningful gap given the absence of annotation support.

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 short sentence with no filler and the main action is front-loaded. It is concise, but it is also sparse enough that the sentence does not carry much informational weight beyond the tool name.

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?

Even though an output schema exists and covers return values, the central concept of 'stale' is unexplained and there is no guidance to distinguish this from query_decisions. With pagination parameters and a required working_directory, a one-sentence description is not enough for complete contextual 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate for the parameters. It loosely maps 'current workspace' to working_directory but says nothing about limit or cursor semantics. An agent can infer their roles from the schema, but not their interaction or how staleness relates to them.

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 verb ('List'), a specific resource ('stale decisions'), and a scope ('current workspace'), which is enough to identify the core operation. However, 'stale' is not defined and there is no distinction made from sibling tools like query_decisions, so full purpose clarity is not achieved.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention what staleness means, when to prefer query_decisions, or any exclusions. The only implied context is the current workspace, but that alone is insufficient for an agent to choose this tool confidently.

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