check_stale

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a destructive effect ("retire those memories") and that recall duplicates this behavior implicitly, which is valuable. But it never defines what retirement means (deletion vs. flagging vs. mark_outdated), nor whether the check is report-only, leaving real ambiguity about consequences.

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, no filler, with the action and its scope front-loaded before the sibling cross-reference. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, triggering condition, and the sibling overlap. The only shortfall is the undefined semantics of "retire," which matters for a mutating, no-parameter tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey; the description correctly explains the implicit scope (all memories with linked files) instead of inventing arguments. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: check whether a memory's linked files changed since save, then retire those memories. It also names the sibling that performs the same work (recall), so an agent can separate it from the other memory tools.

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?

Gives an explicit condition for calling it ("directly after big changes") and names the alternative (recall does this automatically). The phrasing is slightly ambiguous about why to call it at all if recall is automatic, but the when-to-use signal is present and concrete.

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