find_stale_workspaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core filtering behavior (based on recent opening) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what output format to expect, or any limitations (e.g., based on last opened vs. last modified). This is adequate but leaves room for more 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and every word adds value. It is concise and well-structured.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and minimal annotations. The description covers the 'what' and 'why' but omits the return value and any edge cases. Given the tool's simplicity, it is sufficient but not complete—missing output expectations makes it a 3.

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 coverage is 100%: the only parameter 'days' has a clear description with default value. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics but aligns logically with the schema's meaning of 'recently'. 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's function: finding workspaces not opened recently. This specific verb+resource+condition distinguishes it from siblings like list_workspaces (lists all) or get_workspace (fetches a specific one), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Useful for identifying abandoned or forgotten projects' provides clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is well implied, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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