stale_report

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavior: sorting order, flagging of never-reverified entries, surfacing of valid_while premises, and the event-driven nature. 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 well-structured, starting with a question to introduce purpose, then explaining output, parameters, and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 existence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, behavioral traits, and differentiation from siblings. It is complete and informative.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains both parameters in detail: project for limiting to one project (default all) and older_than_days for age filter (0 means no filter, includes never-verified). Defaults and behavior are clear.

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 lists promoted knowledge that might be stale, sorted oldest-first, with flagged never-reverified entries and surfaced valid_while premises. It distinguishes itself from siblings like verify_entry.

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 states it is event-driven and not clock-driven, advises against using it for decaying confidence scores, and directs to verify_entry for re-confirmation. It also mentions that promotion counts as verification.

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