get_stale_safe_rollouts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('fetches') but does not detail aspects like pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'offset' parameters), error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with parameters and no structured safety hints.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized 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?

Given the complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and output format, which are crucial for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The description alone does not provide enough context for effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no information about the parameters ('limit', 'offset', 'project'). The baseline is 3 because the schema itself defines the parameters with types and defaults, though without descriptions. The description does not enhance understanding of what these parameters mean or how they affect the fetch operation.

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 action ('fetches') and resource ('all complete safe rollouts from the GrowthBook API'), specifying that these rollouts are either 'rolled-back or released'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_experiments' or 'get_feature_flags', which might also retrieve related data from the same API.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other 'get_' tools in the sibling list. It mentions the type of rollouts ('complete safe rollouts') but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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