Registry freshness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by explaining the meaning of states like 'filling' and 'stalled' and clarifying that these do not indicate wrong or slow data. It does not explicitly mention side effects or access requirements, but for a status tool this is a reasonable disclosure.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it starts with the core purpose, enumerates exactly what is covered, and then gives practical usage and interpretation guidance. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect and when to call it. It explains all major output categories and the critical interpretation caveats, leaving little ambiguity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema already fully covers the parameter surface.

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 identifies the tool's resource: freshness of everything Fletch publishes, including daemon heartbeat, registry jobs, scanners, and figure ages. It is specific and not a tautology, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not directly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as chain_health.

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?

It gives explicit guidance on when to call: before trusting a number whose freshness matters. It also explains how to interpret freshness verdicts, which helps the agent know what the result means, but it does not discuss when not to use this tool or when a sibling would be preferable.

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