get_stale_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output is a Markdown string of stale relationships but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The agent lacks information about safety or repeated invocation impacts.

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 no filler words. However, it could be slightly more structured by placing the main action at the beginning and possibly splitting into two sentences for clarity. It is efficient but lacks front-loading of the key action.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description minimally covers the purpose and output format. However, it could elaborate on the Markdown structure or edge cases (e.g., what happens if no stale relationships exist). Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 describes both parameters ('threshold' and 'repo') with meanings and defaults. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline 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The description clearly states the tool returns relationships that have decayed in confidence, which are outdated, and specifies the output format as a Markdown string. The verb 'returns' and resource 'relationships that have decayed in confidence' are specific and differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_context' or 'invalidate_edge'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_context' for general context or 'invalidate_edge' for removing stale edges. The description lacks explicit context for usage, such as prerequisites or common scenarios.

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