list_stale_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It's a read/list operation (implied by 'List'), but there's no mention of what happens with stale sources—whether they're just listed or also returned with their fetched status, what the response shape is, or any pagination/limits. The description doesn't specify return behavior beyond listing.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. No wasted words, and it directly communicates the tool's purpose without padding.

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?

The tool has a simple single-parameter signature with a 100%-covered schema and an output schema provided. However, for a list tool that likely feeds into refresh_source or import workflows, the description doesn't clarify how these stale sources relate to sibling tools like refresh_source, nor what the returned entities contain beyond being 'imported subtopics'. It's minimally adequate but leaves the workflow context implicit.

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 100%, meaning the parameter older_than_iso is fully documented in the schema with a clear description and example format. The description itself mirrors the schema's cutoff semantics but doesn't add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 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 action ('List') and the resource ('imported subtopics'), with a specific filtering criteria ('source_fetched_at older than a cutoff'). It's specific enough to identify the tool's core function, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like list_components or list_repos beyond naming the specific resource type 'imported subtopics'.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description doesn't mention when the agent should choose this tool over alternatives like list_components, list_repos, or list_tasks, nor does it state what the tool is NOT for. There's no context about prerequisites or typical workflows.

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