stale_candidates

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'read-only suggestions,' implying non-destructiveness, but does not explain selection criteria, output format, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no metadata to rely on.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single phrase does not provide enough information to be actionable, so it does not earn its place in the tool definition.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is expected to explain behavior and usage. It only offers a vague label, making it completely inadequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 contains 8 parameters with 0% coverage from the description. The description does not mention rootPath, limit, minSizeMB, or any other parameters, leaving the agent to guess their semantics. This is a complete failure to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptive text.

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 'Large and old files (read-only suggestions)' uses a noun phrase rather than an imperative verb, leaving ambiguity about whether this tool scans, lists, or reports. It hints at the tool's focus but does not clearly state the action, making it hard to distinguish from sibling tools like top_files or duplicate_candidates.

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 top_files or duplicate_candidates. The 'read-only' hint is the only context, but it does not direct the agent toward a specific use case or provide exclusions.

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