get_staleness_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions retrieving a report with metrics but fails to state that it is a read-only operation, possible data source dependencies, or any side effects. The threshold parameter's impact on staleness calculation is not explained.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that pack the essential purpose and outcome. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids any unnecessary words or repetition.

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 the lack of an output schema and the tool's retrieval nature, the description could be more explicit about the output format or structure. It mentions 'review compliance metrics' and 'governance insights' but is vague. The threshold parameter's role is not clarified despite being essential for staleness determination.

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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it only restates that the report identifies stale ADRs. 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'ADR staleness report from ADR Aggregator', clearly stating it identifies stale ADRs and provides governance insights. It distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_adr_timeline or get_adr_priorities by focusing on staleness and compliance metrics.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. There are no explicit context signals or exclusions, so an agent has no help in differentiating usage from sibling tools.

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