get_stale_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the output (files and their funcs) but does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites like requiring an existing index (from index_repository), or behavior when the index is missing or outdated.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key criterion and output. No wasted words.

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?

The tool appears to depend on an existing index (sibling index_repository), but the description doesn't mention prerequisites or failure modes. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't explain the index concept or why 'funcs changed' is the staleness criterion, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It mentions 'root_path's index', which implies root_path identifies an indexed location, but fails to specify whether it's a directory path, file path, or required format. This is minimal added context for the single parameter.

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 ('Return') and names the exact resource: files in root_path's index whose description is stale due to changed funcs. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like set_description and index_repository by focusing on identifying stale files.

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?

No explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies it's for discovering stale descriptions before updating them, but it doesn't say that directly or mention alternatives like set_description.

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