continuation_read_with_staleness

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the tool does not delete until a new note is written, which signals a non-destructive operation. However, it does not explain whether reading updates staleness state, what side effects may occur, or what 'new note written' actually triggers.

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 sentence with the key behavioral distinction front-loaded in a parenthetical. It contains no filler, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary detail.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter, the description is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema and no explanation of what 'staleness detection' returns, and the description does not explicitly disambiguate among the many similar continuation sibling tools.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the only parameter, stale_threshold_hours, including a default and description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly names the verb 'Read' and the resource 'continuation note,' and the parenthetical 'does not delete until new note written' distinguishes it from cleanup-oriented siblings. However, 'staleness detection' is left vague, so it does not fully explain what the tool actually does beyond the name.

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 implies a non-destructive read use case, especially in contrast to a tool like continuation_read_and_cleanup, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no direct guidance on which alternative to choose for deletion or cleanup scenarios.

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