get_staleness_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds useful context about querying the ADR Aggregator and providing compliance metrics, but it does not disclose potential edge cases, report scope, or behavior beyond what the annotations and core purpose already imply.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the action, names the source, states the output type, and gives the practical purpose of identifying stale ADRs. Every clause contributes meaningful information.

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, read-only, zero-required-parameter report tool, the description is largely complete: it describes the source, the output function, and the type of insights. There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the metrics. It could be stronger with an explicit statement of what the returned report contains, but the current description is sufficient for basic invocation.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented structurally. The description does not add extra meaning about how threshold or projectPath behave or how they affect the report, so it earns the baseline 3 rather than higher.

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 identifies a specific action ('Get'), a resource ('ADR staleness report'), the source ('ADR Aggregator'), and the deliverable ('review compliance metrics'). It is far from a tautology and tells the agent it identifies stale ADRs, but it does not explicitly contrast it with nearby sibling tools like analyze_adr_timeline or get_adr_priorities.

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 intended use case is implied: use this when you need stale ADRs and governance insights. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as analyze_adr_timeline, get_adr_priorities, or validate_adr_compliance, and no exclusions are stated.

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