Check Entry Staleness

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description usefully adds what is compared (anchors against git history since entry creation). However, it does not explain that the checks are per-anchor or what happens on a miss, and it creates mild tension with readOnlyHint=false: 'Check if...' reads as pure inspection, so an agent cannot tell whether the call records staleness state or just reports it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scope qualifier ('since the entry was created') built in. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but for a git-comparison tool with an undocumented test-DB parameter and an unresolved side-effect question, the description leaves real gaps. What an agent needs to invoke it correctly is mostly present, but the usage context is thin against a 2-param, 50%-documented tool.

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 50%: entryId is documented in the schema, but use_test_db has no description anywhere. The description adds nothing about either parameter (e.g., what 'stale' means for an anchor, or when the test DB flag matters), so it neither compensates for the gap nor detracts. Baseline 3 fits this borderline coverage.

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 gives a specific verb (check) and a precise resource (a journal entry's anchors vs. git history since creation), including the two failure modes it detects (modified or deleted). It does not name or distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as mark_anchors_stale or get_entry_history, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement of when an agent should call this versus mark_anchors_stale, get_entry_history, or get_commit_history, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usable cue is the implicit 'run before trusting an entry's links', which the agent must infer.

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