mdan_graph_stale

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the selection criteria and output scope. It does not, however, explain how staleness is determined, what the return format is, or whether the downstream traversal has depth limits. This matches the baseline for an annotated read-only list tool.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key downstream-review detail. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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 simple, parameterless read-only tool, the description conveys the essential purpose and output category. The only real gap is the lack of detail about what 'modified since registration' means and whether the downstream list is recursive or direct, but the overall intent is clear enough for an agent to select and call it 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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the description has no parameter burden to carry. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs.

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 ('List') and identifies the exact resource: artifacts modified since registration plus the downstream artifacts that need review. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like mdan_graph_visualize or mdan_graph_add_node without needing to inspect the schema.

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 context is implicit: an agent can infer it should call this when reviewing stale artifacts and their downstream impact. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, name alternative tools, or provide exclusion criteria. The guidance is adequate but not fully explicit.

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