check_log_freshness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains that 26 hours for a daily job indicates non-run and frames it as a passive check. However, it doesn't disclose the return format, whether it's read-only (which is heavily implied by 'liveness check' and 'no instrumentation'), or how it handles missing directories. The behavioral traits are partially disclosed but incomplete.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. The example in the second sentence is useful and earns its place. Slightly more detail on parameters or output could be added, but as written there's no wasted text.

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?

There is an output schema, which reduces the burden on the description for return values. The tool is moderately complex with 3 params. The description explains the core use case and heuristic, but doesn't fully cover edge cases or clarify how it differs from tools like check_recent_errors or find_stale_placeholders beyond the cheapest-liveness framing. Adequate but with some gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for params. The description's 26-hour example maps to max_age_hours and implies directory is the logs location, but it doesn't explain pattern's role or clarify parameter format/edge cases. The description adds some context (the 26h heuristic) but doesn't systematically cover all three parameters.

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 states the tool reports logs that haven't been written to recently, using 'liveness check' and provides a concrete example (a daily job whose log is 26 hours old has not run). This is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes somewhat from siblings like check_recent_errors and find_failing_jobs, though it doesn't explicitly name them as alternatives.

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 description gives clear context for when to use it: as a liveness check for scheduled jobs. It notes this is the 'cheapest liveness check available' and 'requires no instrumentation,' implying it's a good first choice for job health monitoring. It doesn't explicitly specify when NOT to use it or name sibling alternatives, but the context is clear.

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