get_staleness_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It implies a read-only operation ('Get,' 'identifies,' 'provides insights') but does not explicitly state reading behavior, required permissions, or side effects. The implication is reasonable but not explicit.

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 two sentences long, directly stating the main function and the value ('identifies stale ADRs that need attention'). No extraneous content; every sentence earns its place.

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 description covers the core purpose clearly but omits details about the output format or structure, especially given no output schema exists. It mentions 'review compliance metrics' generically but does not specify what metrics are returned. This is adequate but not fully detailed.

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 coverage is 100%; both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 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 tool retrieves a staleness report with review compliance metrics for ADRs. It uses specific verbs ('Get...report') and identifies the resource ('ADR Aggregator'). Among sibling tools, none share this exact focus on staleness, so it is well-differentiated.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other analysis tools (e.g., analyze_adr_timeline, validate_adr). The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or context for invocation.

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