gograph_stale

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds valuable context: '100% local, read-only static analysis tool. No side effects, no auth, no rate limits, no destructive modifications.' Consistent and extends beyond annotations.

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?

Description is well-structured with sections for behavior, usage, completeness. Front-loaded with purpose. Slight redundancy in completeness section restating purpose, but overall 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?

For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, description is complete. States it returns 'a list of stale package paths.' No gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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?

No parameters in schema (0 params), schema description coverage 100% vacuously. Baseline for 0 params is 4. Description does not need to add param info; it adds no param details but that is acceptable.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists stale Go package dependencies. Verb 'list' and resource 'stale Go package dependencies' are specific. Differentiates from siblings like gograph_deps by focusing on staleness for rebuilding.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'verifying incremental build status, caching layers, or validating compilation health.' Also states when not to use: 'Do NOT use if package dependencies are up to date.' Provides clear context without naming alternatives explicitly.

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