stale_repository_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only reporting operation ('List...'), but it does not disclose potential side effects, sorting behavior, or details about output format beyond the parameters. It is adequate but lacks deeper behavioral 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?

The description is highly concise: one sentence stating the purpose, followed by a structured 'Args' section with two brief explanations. Every word earns its place, and the format is easy to parse.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics. It could mention ordering or default behavior details, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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 schema provides only titles and defaults for the two parameters, with 0% description coverage. The tool description fully compensates by explaining both 'threshold_days' and 'limit' in plain language, making the parameters meaningful and easy to understand.

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: 'List repositories that have not been pushed to recently.' This is a specific verb-resource combination with a clear condition. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_repositories, but it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it earns a 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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when you need to identify stale repositories), but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, so usage guidance is only implied.

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