tmf_stale_slice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it enumerates return fields (claim_fresh, required_reads, retained_fresh_bindings, side_effect_checks, stop_rule), states error behavior for unknown IDs, and prominently discloses limits ('bounded heuristics, not proof of complete dependency coverage', 'fresh does not mean correct'). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then return fields, then usage constraints, so an agent gets the essentials in the first sentence. It is dense but most sentences earn their place; the unknown-claim-ID error is somewhat restated (once as 'do not invent IDs', once as 'an unknown claim ID raises an error'), which costs a point.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does — listing the exact returned fields plus the stop_rule and side-effect-check obligations. Combined with the error path and the freshness caveat, nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret this tool is missing.

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 100%, so 3 is the baseline, but the description adds real guidance beyond the schema: claim_id must come from a prior tmf tool and must not be invented, and the task terms in 'question' influence source-reading selection. It does not add syntax detail for the two capped-integer parameters, which the schema already documents well.

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?

States a precise verb and resource: 'Plan which current source to re-read after a stored claim becomes stale.' It names the sibling tools that produce the claim_id (tmf_context, tmf_retrieve, tmf_explain) and clearly scopes itself as read-planning only, distinguishing it from edit or index-refresh siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('after a stored claim becomes stale, for example after a merge'), an explicit exclusion ('plans reads only: it does not perform edits, refresh the index, or guarantee freshness'), and routes the agent elsewhere on failure ('rediscover the target with tmf_retrieve'). When-to-use, when-not, and alternatives are all present.

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