getStaleIssues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it filters open issues, orders by staleness, and is for inactivity triage, which is beyond what annotations provide. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a pointer to the alternative. Every word earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context for calling the tool: it clarifies the filter (open issues), the ordering, and the use case. It doesn't mention defaults or pagination, but that's minor given the output schema.

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 already describes projectId and daysSinceUpdate, covering 67% of parameters. The description indirectly refers to daysSinceUpdate via 'last-update age' but doesn't add explicit parameter meaning. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 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 uses a specific verb 'Identify' and a clear resource 'neglected open issues in one project', and specifies ordering 'most stale first'. It also names the sibling tool 'listIssues' and clarifies the distinction, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs to use listIssues for general field or status filters and states this tool is for inactivity triage, providing a clear when-to-use and an alternative. This guides the agent to choose correctly.

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