cerebro_stale

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output (stale items) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. The name 'stale' suggests a read operation, but this is implicit.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and concise, though slightly verbose with 'What the index no longer trusts'. It 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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what 'stale' means: files changed/added/deleted since last reindex and summaries with changed source files. This covers the main categories without needing to detail return format.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. With 0 parameters, the description does not need to add param info, and it appropriately focuses on the output.

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 explains that the tool returns items the index no longer trusts, specifically files changed/added/deleted on disk and summaries with changed source files. It clearly states what it does, though the verb 'trust' is somewhat abstract and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cerebro_reindex' or 'cerebro_sync'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No comparison with sibling tools (e.g., 'cerebro_reindex' for reindexing) or conditions for invocation.

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