Ghost Inspector: stale versus genuinely broken

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, disclosing cost ('Costs one request per test, a few seconds for a few hundred tests'), algorithmic details (walking the whole module chain), and side-effect warnings about test re-runs. It also explains exclusions and the additional report of passing-but-unverified tests.

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 longer than average but each sentence earns its place, covering trigger condition, failure categorization, warnings, exclusions, and cost. It is front-loaded with the key instruction and structured logically, making it dense but efficient.

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?

Given the tool's analytical complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the behavior, edge cases, costs, and expected results (staleFailures, genuineFailures, passing-unverified). It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 for the single parameter includePasses is 100%, with a clear description already. The tool description adds narrative context about passing tests but does not meaningfully enhance the parameter's meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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: 'Splits failures into two piles by comparing the whole `execute` chain's `dateUpdated` against each test's last run.' The title and description distinguish it as a diagnostic classifier for stale versus genuine failures, setting it apart from sibling tools like gi_validate_test or gi_inventory.

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?

Explicitly prescribes when to use: 'Call this BEFORE diagnosing or editing any red test.' It also gives actionable guidance on where to start ('Start there, oldest first'), and warns against unsafe re-running ('Confirm what a test does before triggering it'), covering both when-to and when-not-to.

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