find_stale_cis

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds context about default filtering to operational CIs and the ordering of results (most stale first). It does not contradict annotations and discloses the return format beyond the schema.

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 with a clear purpose, contextual explanation, examples, parameter list, and return format. It is front-loaded and each section adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without the examples.

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's 5 parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description comprehensively covers all aspects: parameter details with defaults and ranges, return fields and ordering, and a motivating use case (broken discovery). It is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It provides detailed explanations for all 5 parameters, including defaults, allowed values, constraints (e.g., days between 1-3650), and behavioral contexts like the operational_status default. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 finds CIs not updated within a specified number of days, defines 'stale' based on sys_updated_on, and provides examples. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_cis or find_orphan_cis, but the specific purpose is distinct enough for an agent to understand.

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 implies usage for detecting potentially broken discovery or decommissioned assets via stale CIs, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusion criteria or recommendations for when not to use it are provided.

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