Knowledge Freshness

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and adds useful context: it reports on freshness across documents, uses category-specific thresholds, and implicitly performs no mutation. The pointer to the refresh workflow further clarifies the boundary between reporting and acting.

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 tight sentences deliver the core function and the decision context without filler. The freshness metric is front-loaded, and the workflow pointer is a valuable addition that does not bloat the description.

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 reporting tool with one optional boolean and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what output is expected (a freshness report per document) and how the result should be used. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the refresh workflow pointer addresses the natural follow-up action.

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 only only_stale boolean parameter, so the schema fully documents its meaning and default. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 ('Report') and a well-defined resource ('knowledge documents') with a precise metric: age since last verification compared to each category's staleness threshold. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools, which all focus on design knowledge retrieval or audits rather than freshness reporting.

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 explicitly states the tool's intended use ('decide which docs need re-research') and directs the agent to the refresh workflow via /refresh-knowledge. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but no sibling tool appears to offer freshness reporting, making the context clear enough.

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