stale_pr_report

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

No annotations provided. Description mentions inactivity but doesn't define 'activity' (e.g., comments, commits) or specify if only open PRs are considered. With no annotations, more detail would improve transparency.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with core intent. No wasted words, but could include more structure without becoming verbose.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits what the report returns (list, count, details?). Lacks behavioral context for a tool inspecting pull requests, such as scope or filtering behavior.

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?

Schema has 0% parameter description coverage. Description only implicitly references 'days' via 'N days', and offers no explanation for 'owner' or 'repo'. Fails to add meaning beyond schema structure.

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?

Description clearly states the tool finds stale pull requests based on inactivity days. It distinguishes from sibling tools like stale_issue_report (for issues) and PR-specific tools like pr_check_status.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. While the purpose implies which tool to choose among siblings, the description lacks direct alternatives or context for selection.

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