gograph_stale

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds critical behavioral details: mtime fallback, no auto-refresh, fallback comparison on missing/unreadable artifacts, and read-only/no side effects. It enriches the safety profile without contradicting 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (WHEN TO USE, NOT TO USE, RETURNS) and each sentence conveys essential information. It is detailed yet not bloated, front-loading the core purpose before expansion.

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?

With no output schema, the description explicitly lists return fields (is_stale, graph_age, newest source metadata, changed_files, build_context_changed) and explains fallback behavior. For a 0-parameter tool, it covers all necessary context for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter-level semantics, and it doesn't, but it stays at the baseline. No additional value is required here.

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 states a specific action: checking whether the trusted persisted graph index differs from selected-file inventory, build context, or content digests. It clearly names the resource (.gograph/graph.json) and defines the scope, and explicitly differentiates from gograph_changes via the NOT TO USE section, making it distinct among many sibling tools.

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?

WHEN TO USE and NOT TO USE sections provide explicit context (deciding whether rebuilding is needed) and exclusions (module dependency freshness, changed symbols with gograph_changes named as alternative). This is exemplary guidance.

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