gograph_stale

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and no side effects; the description adds that .gograph/graph.json must exist and describes the return JSON structure (stale bool, timestamps, changed files). No contradiction with 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 (purpose, requirements, usage guidance, return format). It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but structure aids readability.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains return values (stale bool, graph_mtime, newest_source_mtime, source files list). It also mentions prerequisites (file must exist) and error conditions. Complete for a parameterless 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?

The input schema has no parameters (0 params), so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info because none exist, which is appropriate.

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The description clearly states the tool checks if .gograph/graph.json is outdated relative to Go source files, with a specific condition (stale:true if any .go file is newer). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gograph_changes by explicitly naming it in the 'NOT TO USE' section.

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 includes explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'NOT TO USE' sections, providing context (pre-flight check before structural analysis) and alternatives (gograph_changes for symbol changes, go list -m for dependency freshness).

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