stale_pull_requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are filtered to open PRs, thresholded at N days, and sorted oldest first, which is real behavioral detail. However, it omits read-only confirmation, pagination/result-size limits, and any auth or rate-limit context.

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?

Three short lines that are front-loaded with the core scope statement, then the analytical purpose, then the ordering guarantee. The bottleneck sentence is mildly promotional but still aids tool selection, so nothing egregiously wastes space.

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 values need not be described, and the description covers filtering and sorting adequately. Gaps remain around the read-only nature of the call, result volume/pagination, and the `days` default, which for a zero-annotation, zero-coverage tool leaves the agent slightly under-informed.

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 description coverage is 0% and none of the three parameters is documented in the schema beyond bare titles. The description only conveys semantic meaning for the `days` threshold ("longer than N days"), leaving `owner` and `repo` — both required — unexplained; it also never states that `days` has a default.

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+resource (open pull requests) plus a precise scope qualifier (waiting longer than N days), so an agent can tell it apart from generic siblings like repo_overview or commit_activity. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting any sibling, which keeps it at 4 rather than 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?

"Useful for spotting review bottlenecks" implies a usage context — review-latency analysis rather than general PR listing — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the siblings. The guidance is implied rather than actionable.

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