stale_event_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it fails entirely. It does not mention effects, read-only vs. mutation, permissions, pagination, return format, or any side effects. The tool name implies a read but nothing is substantiated.

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 technically brief, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no useful content to be concise about. A placeholder of a few words does not earn credit for efficient structure.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool does, what input means, or what the output will be. An agent cannot possibly call this tool correctly based on the current definition.

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% and the description adds no meaning to any of the 10 parameters. Required 'repository_id' and optional fields like 'snapshot_id', 'operation_id', 'page_token' have no explanation. The agent cannot infer parameter usage or format from either schema or description.

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 'stale event read' is a tautology that simply restates the tool name. It does not specify a verb, resource, or any distinctive behavior. There is no clarification of what constitutes a 'stale event' or what the read operation entails, leaving the agent with no understanding of the tool's purpose.

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 the many siblings (e.g., 'stale_event', 'evidence_verify', 'snapshot_catalog'). No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The description offers zero usage direction.

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