Get stale repository report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it reports old branches and PRs but does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like, whether it has side effects, or how the 'shared age threshold' is applied. It lacks any disclosure about potential rate limits, required permissions, or the nature of the report. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence, which is concise and avoids verbosity. However, it is too sparse to be effective. It front-loads the action (Report) but lacks structure or elaboration. While brevity is a positive, the description is under-specified, so it is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. It earns a middle score for not wasting words but loses for not providing necessary details.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, parameter usage, behavioral traits, or any prerequisites. An agent would be unable to correctly call this tool without external knowledge. The description is far from complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for any of the 5 parameters. The description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings, but it does not. It mentions a 'shared age threshold' but does not link it to the staleDays parameter, and it does not explain top, project, repositoryId, or protectedBranches. The agent receives no semantic help beyond the parameter names and types, which is insufficient.

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 a clear purpose: reporting old branches and open pull requests using a shared age threshold. It is specific about the resource (old branches and open PRs) and the action (report). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like list_stale_branches (which only lists stale branches) and list_pull_requests (which lists all PRs), though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The combination of branches and PRs with a shared threshold is unique enough to be clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or provide context on when this report is preferable to list_stale_branches or list_pull_requests. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and description, which is minimal. No when/when-not guidance is provided.

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