list_unannotated_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently explains that it returns missing and stale annotation lists plus coverage stats, and that limit applies per category, but it does not define what makes an annotation stale or whether this depends on a prior index.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by workflow context and then parameter and return details. The Args/Returns structure is efficient and every sentence contributes useful selection or invocation context.

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 one-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, workflow, the limit parameter, and the return categories. Minor gaps remain around prerequisites and the exact stale-annotation criteria, but the core invocation context is complete.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining that limit is the maximum number of files per category, not just a total. The default of 20 is also stated, matching the schema.

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 and resource: it lists code files lacking annotations or with stale annotations. It also explicitly connects the output to save_annotation(), making its role distinct from the action-oriented sibling.

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?

It gives a clear recommended workflow: save or refresh annotations after working on a file, and periodically run this tool to find backlog files. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives such as get_annotations(), but the usage context is clear.

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