im_get_aged_breaks

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 states the tool finds items, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm idempotency, lack of side effects, or any authorization needs. The description is adequate but could be more transparent about its read-only nature and whether it returns summary or detailed data.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and adding a brief usage context. Every word is useful; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient for an AI agent.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers its purpose and context for aging reviews. However, it lacks detail on output format (e.g., whether it returns a list or counts) and default behavior (e.g., ordering). For a simple filter tool, this is reasonable but slightly incomplete.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions, so the description adds little semantic value. It mentions 'older than a specified number of days' which duplicates the age_days parameter description. No examples or additional usage guidance for the filter parameters are provided, making the description redundant with 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 clearly states 'Find break/exception items older than a specified number of days' with a specific verb (Find) and resource (aged breaks/exception items). It distinguishes from siblings like im_get_breaks (all breaks) and im_break_aging_report (likely a report) by focusing on aged items and being a direct retrieval tool.

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 provides clear context: 'Critical for break ageing reviews and escalations,' indicating when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide explicit alternatives among the listed siblings, which include im_break_aging_report and im_get_breaks.

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