get_stale_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It only states that the tool returns data as a Markdown string, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, its side effects, authorization requirements, or performance implications. The agent has insufficient information to judge safety or cost.

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 that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and output format. There is no unnecessary text, and every word serves a clear function.

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 has two optional parameters and no output schema. While the description mentions the Markdown string output, it does not explain what 'stale' means, how confidence is measured, or what the returned Markdown looks like. Additional context about the underlying graph or examples would improve completeness, but the current description is minimally adequate.

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?

Both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema (threshold with default and range, repo as optional path). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, a 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The description clearly states the tool returns relationships that have decayed in confidence and may be outdated, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project_context or get_symbol_context that return broader context. The verb 'returns' and resource 'relationships' are precise, and the tool's focus on staleness sets it apart.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_context or get_recent_decisions. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to prefer this over other context tools. A user would need external knowledge to decide.

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