Code Age Analysis

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by describing a read-only analysis (showing age, identifying stale files). It adds behavioral context about identifying potential dead code and abandoned features. No contradictions.

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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, utility, and a critical note. No wasted words.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and context. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., list with file paths and dates), which would help agents understand the output.

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 100% (all 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds use-case context but does not provide additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema already covers. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for missing schema info.

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 shows the age of code in each file (last modified time) and identifies stale files. It uses specific verbs ('Show', 'Identifies') and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on file age rather than hotspots, churn, or other analyses.

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 explicit use cases: cleanup planning, onboarding, understanding evolving areas. It also includes a conditional note about requiring repo_path when not inside a git repo. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use this tool.

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