Find stale flags

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: a 50-candidate-per-call cap and a concrete limitation that per-rule percentage ramps are not inspected. This gives the agent expectations beyond what the schema or annotations provide.

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 dense sentences front-load the purpose and pack criteria, caveat, and candidate limit without redundancy. No filler, no repetition of schema defaults.

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?

For a read-only filtered-list tool with two scalar parameters, the description covers the selection rule, a safety caveat, and the candidate cap. Although there is no output schema, the return type (candidate flags) is evident from the stated purpose.

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 description gives 'N days' operational meaning tied to the days parameter crucially, but the required project parameter is left undocumented in both schema and description. With schema description coverage at 50%, the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter semantics.

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 outcome ('flags ready for code cleanup') with exact selection criteria: not updated in N days AND enabled or disabled in every environment. This clearly differentiates it from sibling list/get/status tools and is not a tautology of the title.

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?

Establishes clear usage context for finding cleanup candidates and includes operational guidance such as verifying rollout completeness before removal and noting that percentage ramps are not inspected. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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