stash_signals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool only returns aggregate age buckets and counts, and explicitly states that no stash messages, refs, hashes, or paths are returned. This clarifies the read-only, non-revealing nature, though it does not mention failure modes or edge cases like an empty stash.

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, front-loaded sentence that uses no filler words. It efficiently conveys the action, scope, and limitations in a compact format.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter) and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent exactly what will be returned (age buckets and count) and what will not be included, leaving no critical gaps.

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 sole parameter cwd is fully documented in the schema with 'Local Git repository path; no network access is used.' The description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already covers, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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's function: 'Summarize local stash age buckets and count' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself by explicitly listing what it does not return (messages, refs, hashes, paths), setting it apart from sibling tools that might provide more detail.

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 getting a high-level stash summary, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over reflog_signals or recovery_signals. No direct guidance on exclusions or alternative scenarios is provided.

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