scf_refresh_stale_window_assessments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write operation but not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it queues assessments (not runs them synchronously), is capped per run, returns a count of queued items, and requires an editor role. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations about side effects and limits.

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 sentences with zero waste. The core action and condition are front-loaded, followed by the role requirement, cap, and return value. Every clause earns its place and no information is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains what gets queued, the staleness condition, the cap, the return value, and the role requirement. It doesn't specify the cap size or how to check results afterward, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 schema already documents the single org_id parameter well, including how to obtain it (scf_list_organizations). The description doesn't add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but with full coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description's mention of 'per run' and 'capped' indirectly relates to behavior rather than the parameter itself.

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 states a specific verb ('Queue'), a precise resource ('fresh windowed AI assessment for every evidence item whose newest file postdates its last assessment'), and a clear scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scf_trigger_window_assessment and scf_bulk_assess_windows by focusing on stale items detected via file postdates, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when evidence items have newer files than their last assessment and need refreshed windowed assessments. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'stale' condition and 'write — editor role' hint provide clear context. It could be improved by explicitly saying 'use scf_trigger_window_assessment for a single window' or similar, but the context is strong.

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