gograph_stale

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it intentionally does not refresh first, describes fallback behavior when the artifact is missing/unreadable/unsafe/unsupported, and confirms read-only with no side effects. Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive, but the description's details about fallback and non-refreshing are valuable.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, usage, exclusions, and return values. Every sentence adds value, and the use of bolded 'WHEN TO USE', 'NOT TO USE', and 'RETURNS' makes it easy to scan while remaining concise.

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?

The description is fully self-contained: it covers the tool's behavior, fallback logic, exclusions, and return values. With no output schema and no parameters, it provides all necessary context for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it, and it clearly differentiates from sibling tools.

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?

With no parameters in the schema, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters and correctly focuses on behavior and returns, which is sufficient given the zero-parameter interface.

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: checking whether the trusted persisted graph index differs from current inventory, build context, or source modification times. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings, especially noting it is not for changed symbols.

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 explicit WHEN TO USE and NOT TO USE sections, including an alternative tool (gograph_changes) for changed symbols and excluding module dependency freshness. This gives clear guidance for when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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